CHANDRABOTI BIN Vs. KIRENDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by the plaintiffs, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hailakandi, in Title Appeal No.22/1999, dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellants by affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Hailakandi, in Title Suit No.14/1992, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the present appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) THE appellants as plaintiffs instituted the said suit for passing a decree directing the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 to allot the suit land measuring 1 bigha 1/4th katha, more fully described in schedule to the plaint, apart from a decree that the defendants have no right, title and possession over the suit land. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree confirming their possession, in the alternative, if the plaintiffs are found to be dispossessed, to pass the decree for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants therefrom. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 Balaram Bin was possessing the suit land for about 20 years as jotedar, which land, along with other land, however, was subsequently taken over by the Government as ceiling surplus land and thereafter, the Government of Assam has allotted the said land in favour of the plaintiff No.3, namely, Shri Raj Kumar Bin alias Ram Kumar Bin. It has also been pleaded that while the plaintiffs were possessing the said land, the mother of proforma defendant No.5, who is the widow of Khoka Karmakar, on 08.05.1984, filed an affidavit before the learned Executive Magistrate declaring that she has no objection in issuing of the joint allotment certificate in the name of plaintiff No.3 as she has no demand over the suit land. The further pleaded case is that neither the proforma defendant No.5 nor 6 at any point of time possessed the suit land. It has further been contended that the defendant No.1 with the help of fake documents instituted a suit being Title Suit No.5/1984, on 19.06.1984, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, claiming possession, which has been decreed against the plaintiffs on 21.06.1985 and though the Civil Revision Petition No.224/1985 was filed before this Court against the said judgment and decree passed, the same was dismissed giving liberty to the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and hence the present suit has been filed with the relief claimed.

(3.) THE Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for determination:-