ASHOK PRADHAN Vs. APURBA RAM BAROOAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Mr B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr A.C. Sarma and Ms. T. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiff.

(2.) The judgment and decree dated 4. 11. 1995 passed by the first appellate Court, namely, Assistant District Judge, No. 1, Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 43 of 1993 thus affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.8.1993 passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff, No. 1, in Title Suit No. 287 of 1987 is the subject matter under challenge in this second appeal under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows: The plaintiff, Apurba Ram Barooah, instituted a title suit being Title Suit No. 287 of 1987 as against the present appellants, defendants in the original title suit, before the trial Court for a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in Schedule-B to the plaint, for a decree for recovery of Rs.150/- being arrears of rent, and other reliefs, by contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff/ respondent, Apurba Ram Barooah, was the full and absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 4 kathas and 1 lecha covered by CS Dag No. 1870, KP Patta No. 27 of Mouza-Guwahati, District-Kamrup, which was more fully described in Schedule-A to the plaint, and the said land was originally belonged to his father late Kamakhya Ram Barooah who transferred the said land to the plaintiff by a Registered Deed of Gift, and that being the position, the plaintiff became the full and absolute owner of the said land in Schedule-A to the plaint, and in the meantime, late Debi Lal Pradhan, predecessor-in-interest of defendants/appellants had been allowed by the late father of the plaintiff to occupy 2 kathas 15 lechas of Schedule-A land with specific boundary which was more fully described in Schedule-B, (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land") as a tenant-at-will on the condition that the said Debi Lal Pradhan was to pay a lump-sum rent @ Rs.50/- per year to the plaintiff' s father. After the death of said Debi Lal Pradhan, his sons, Umananda Pradhan and Surya Kumar Pradhan continued the tenancy of the suit land, and after the death of Umananda Pradhan, defendant Nos. 2 to 6 being the legal heirs and representatives continued to posses the suit land along with defendant No. 1, Surya Kumar Pradhan, on the same terms and conditions of the tenancy and they attorned to the plaintiff. But the defendants/appellants did not pay the rent to the plaintiff for the last 5 years inspite of repeated request and demands by the plaintiff, and in the meantime, the defendants/appellants without the knowledge of the plaintiff constructed 3 temporary thatched houses over the suit land. In this situation, the plaintiff requested the defendants to quit and vacate the suit land as the same was required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation, and as the defendants did not vacate the suit land, a notice was served upon them on 10.8.1987 and the defendants duly received the said notice on 18.8.1987. Despite the said notice, the defendants did not vacate the suit land and having no alternative the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 287 of 1987 seeking the relief as highlighted above. The case of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by contending, inter alia, that late Debi Lal Pradhan, father of defendant No. 1, improved the suit land in the year 1942 and constructed residential houses over the Government Khas Land and occupied the same, and the plea so far taken by the plaintiff that the defendants were tenant-at-will and non-payment of rent as alleged by the plaitniff was out and out false. According to the defendants, the predecessor of the plaintiff, late Kamakhya Ram Barooah came to the suit land and asked late Debi Lal Pradhan to get the suit land vacated, but Debi Lal Pradhan turned a deaf ear and continued to possess the suit land described in Schedule-B to the plaintiff, and after the death of said Debi Lal Pradhan, family settlement and arrangements were made between his two sons and defendants-2 to 6 thereby demolishing the houses constructed by late Debilal Pradhan, thus improving the land at the cost of Rs.15,000/- and constructing permanent dwelling houses with Holding No. 9 in the name of Umananda Pradhan (since deceased) one of the sons of late Debilal Pradhan. It was also the case of the defendants that their right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule-B had been perfected by adverse possession and the suit was barred by limitation, particularly, the suit was hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.