PRAFULLA GOGOI AND ANOTHER Vs. TULESWARI KONWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1980 passed in Title Appeal No. 58/76 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No.134/73.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent instituted Title Suit No. 134/73 in the court of learned Sadar Munsiff, Dibrugarh for declaration of right, title and interest over fifty per cent of the suit land measuring 10 Bighas, 2 Kathas and 14 Lechas, described in the schedule to the plaint and for partition and recovery of possession of her share. Plaintiff case was that late Sonaram De-hingia was the original owner of the suit land measuring 10 Bighas 2 Kathas and 14 Lechas. Late Sonaram had two sons namely, late Joges-war Dehingia and late Anu Dehingia. After the death of Sonaram, both of his sons became owners thereof. Late Jogeswar married one Parua and late Anu Dehingia married one Kausalya. Plaintiff is the only child (daughter) of Anu through Kausalya. Late Jogeswar died childless leaving behind his widow Parua. After death of Jogeswar, Parua started living with Anu Dehingia as his mistress and out of their illicit relation defendant No.l, Naba Kanta was bom. After death of Anu Dehingia, Parua started living with another man named Lili Gogoi and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were born through Lili Gogoi. Although Defendants were not entitled to any part of the suit land and the plaintiff lawfully inherited the entire suit land, however, out of affection for defendant No. 1 .plaintiff, has laid claim for half of the suit land measuring 10B-2K-10L in the suit, for declaration of her right, take and interest over 5B-1K-5L and for partition and for recovery of khas possession thereof.

(3.) Defendant No.l Naba Kanta contested the suit by filing written statement contending amongst other that there was a valid marriage between Anu Dehingia and Parua according to Ahom custom and he was the legitimate child of Anu and was entitled to inherit the property left by Anu and that plaintiff having been out of possession fora period exceeding 12 years, the suit was barred by limitation.