LAWS(GAU)-2013-11-12

BABY RANI DEB Vs. MANIK DEY

Decided On November 21, 2013
Baby Rani Deb Appellant
V/S
Manik Dey Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaon, in Title Appeal No.40/2001, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs by affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hojai at Sankardev Nagar, in Title Suit No.32/1992, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the present appellants as plaintiffs has been dismissed.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, namely, Benu Mohan Deb, instituted the suit praying for declaration of his right, title and interest and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, over a plot of land measuring 1 katha, described in schedule to the plaint, contending inter alia that he had purchased the said land from Brojendra Ch. Dey, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, by a registered deed of sale dated 06.03.1963 (Ext.-1) and since then he has been possessing the land by constructing house and residing there by paying taxes and revenues. It has also been pleaded that the defendants initially on 20.12.1991 and thereafter on 28.02.1992 trespassed into the land and the house of the plaintiff, assaulted his wife and daughters, removed boundary pillar from the northeast boundary of the suit land, which necessitated filing of the suit as noticed above.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and contending inter alia that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants never sold the land, who had no right to do so, the suit land being inherited property of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the wives of Brojendra, the alleged vendor of the plaintiff. The defendants have also pleaded that the plaintiff was the permissible occupier with condition that as and when he is asked to vacate the land, the same would be vacated, who, however, despite the demand raised by the defendants refused to vacate the suit land.