MD. SAMSUDDIN MIA Vs. MD. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nalbari, in Title Appeal No.16/1999, dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendants by affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.08.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Nalbari, in Title Suit No.27/1990, by which the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed.

(2.) THE predecessor in interest of the present respondents along with the present respondents instituted Title Suit No.27/1990, against the present appellants as main defendants, praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land measuring 4 bighas, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, and also for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants therefrom, contending inter alia that the land measuring 8 bighas was purchased by the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and the proforma defendant No.10 jointly vide sale deed dated 02.07.1964 (Ext. 1) and the land measuring 5 bighas was purchased by the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 jointly vide sale deed dated 02.02.1974 (Ext. 2) and they became the owners by virtue of such purchase. According to the plaintiffs, out of the land measuring 8 bighas purchased vide sale deed dated 02.07.1964 (Ext. 1) 4 bighas of land fell in the share of the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and the remaining 4 bighas in the share of proforma defendant No.10 and thus the plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4 became the owners of the land measuring 9 bighas covered by Dag Nos.373 and 375 of Patta Nos.115 and 16. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that on 18.01.1987 the defendants trespassed into the land belonging to the plaintiffs and consequently they have been dispossessed from 4 bighas of land, described in schedule to the plaint, for which they have to file the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession. During pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff No.1, namely, Syed Taimuz Ali, has expired and in his place, pursuant to the order dated 29.04.1994 Mustt. Raya Bibi was substituted, who also subsequently died leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4 as the heirs. The names of Syed Taimuz Ali and Mustt. Raya Bibi, however, were not strike out from the array of the plaintiffs, despite the death and substitution.

(3.) BASED on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination: