SUPRAVA BANIK Vs. VIJOY CHAND GOLCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 37/1998, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants has been dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 409/1993.

(2.) THE respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the present appeal filed Title Suit No. 409/1993 praying for a decree declaring the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 s right as land holders in respect of the 3rd Schedule land; for declaration of plaintiff No. 1 s right as land holder to the extent of 50% of the share of the land in the 4th Schedule; for declaration of tenancy right of the plaintiff No. 3 in respect of the remaining part of the 4th Schedule land; for passing a decree for recovery of khas possession of the land in 3rd and 4th Schedule by evicting the defendant Nos. 1 to 4/appellants in the present appeal and also for permanent injunction, contending inter alia that the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 came to occupy the land described in Schedule I initially as tenant under late Sajid Ali and thereafter he purchased the Schedule 3 land, which is part of Schedule 1 land, by registered deed of sale dated 18.12.1950 together with the houses and other structures standing there on from the heirs of late Sajid Ali and on the strength of such purchase the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 became the owner of Schedule 3 land and after the death of their predecessor -in -interest they inherited the property and became the owner. It has also been contended in the plaint that the 2nd Schedule land which includes the 4th Schedule land and the houses standing thereon originally belonged to Khan Saheb Abdul Karim Choudhury and Khan Bahadur Abdul Majid Choudhury in equal shares and the plaintiff No. 3, which is a registered firm was tenant in respect of the land and the shop and houses standing over the Schedule 4 land as monthly tenant under the aforesaid owners and subsequently the plaintiff No. 1 purchased 50% of the land and the houses of 2nd Schedule from the heirs of late Khan Saheb Abdul Karim Choudhury by registered deed of sale dated 14.6.1978 and became the owner in respect of the 50% of the 2nd Schedule land and in respect of the remaining 50% the proforma defendant Nos. 5 and 6, who are the heirs of Khan Bahadur Abdul Majid Choudhury continued to be the owners, in respect of which also the plaintiff No. 3 is the monthly tenant. According to the plaintiffs the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on 30.6.1986 along with others trespassed into the land and blocked the passage in the eastern direction up to the Madan Mohan road which was used by the sweepers for cleaning the night soil from the latrine and blocked the said passage which necessitated filing of the suit by the plaintiffs with the relief claimed, as noticed above.

(3.) THE defendant Nos. 1 to 4 contested the said suit by filing the written statement denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the land as claimed and also contending inter alia that their predecessor -in -interest late Kailash Chandra Banik was the original owner and after his death his son Raimohan Banik acquired title by right of inheritance and thereafter by the defendants. According to the defendants the land described in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 are their ancestral property and they acquired the title by right of inheritance.