LAKSHMI PRABHA BORAH Vs. BHAGYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. K. Kalita assisted by Ms. T. Goswami on behalf of the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) By order dated 18.05.2012, this Court observed that despite service of notice, no one had put up appearance on behalf of the respondents and accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed for hearing. To-day also, when the matter has been called up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of respondents. The appeal is taken up exparte.

(3.) This second appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos. 1 to 5 of the main suit, namely, Title Suit No. 206 of 1995. The suit was instituted by one Tarun Ch. Sharma (Predecessor- in-interest of present respondent Nos.1 to 3) praying for a decree declaring that he was an occupancy on a plot of land measuring (1) 3 B, 1 K, 10 L, under Dag No. 544, (2) 4 B, 0 K, 3 L under Dag No. 637 and (3) 7 B, 0 K, 5 L under Dag No. 702 of K.P. No 52 of village Teteliguri under Mouza Sanapur in the District Kamrup claiming that the said land was covered by khatian No. 1. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plant is that he became an agricultural tenant under one Pranab Kumar Bora ( the predecessor- in-interest Nos. 1 to 5) about 35 years, prior to the institution of the date of the suit on payment of 32 mounds of paddy per bigha per year as annual rent to the landlord. On 30.06.1976, he was given Rayoti Khatian for the said land. As tenant under aforesaid Pranab Kr. Bora (since deceased), he has been cultivating the land for more than 16 years since issuance of Khatian. According to the plaintiff, he filed application for ownership right over the land before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, on 13.03.1995 and the same was pending. At this time the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in collusion with defendant No.6 sought to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land for which the plaintiff had to institute a proceeding before the learned Executive Magistrate under Section 145/ 146 Cr.P.C and thereby the land was attached on 25.05.1995. To frustrate the said proceeding, the plaintiff further stated, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 obtained exparte order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on 08.05.1995 suppressing fact of 145/ 146 CrP.C. proceeding. Thereupon by order dated 26.05.1995, the attachment order was stayed on representation by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. The 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding also lapsed in the meantime. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming declaration as aforesaid, along with a prayer for declaration of temporary or permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents or servants or any other persons claiming under them from entering into the suit land.