MD. MUBASSIR HUSSAIN Vs. MD. NEKBOR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No.27/2000, allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 11, thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Nagaon in Title Suit No.8/1995, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff was initially decreed.

(2.) THE appellant as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of 1 katha 15 1/2 lechas of land covered by annual patta No.39(old), 33(new), more fully described in Schedule-A to the plaint and also for confirmation of possession in respect of Schedule-B land as well as for recovery of khas possession in respect of Schedule-C land by evicting the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 11 therefrom by demolishing the structures raised thereon. Schedule-B and Schedule-C land are part of Schedule-A land. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the land measuring 1 katha 15 1/2 lechas (Schedule-A land) originally belonged to one Md. Taher, S/O Lt. Mohammad Hussain, uncle of the plaintiff, who has executed an Will bequeathing the said property in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Taher on 27.12.1991, the Will was probated and consequently the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiff that during the lifetime of Taher, he inducted the defendant No.1, in a portion of the suit land as licensee, on condition that as and when asked for the defendant No.1 would vacate the land. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiff that after the death of Taher, though the plaintiff had asked the defendant No.1 to vacate the suit land, he did not do so. It has also been pleaded that on or about 15.12.1993 the defendant Nos.22 and 23 without the knowledge of the plaintiff entered to the suit land and constructed the houses thereon despite the protest by the plaintiff and they have also denied the title of the plaintiff. Further pleaded case is that the defendant No.1 has also denied the plaintiff's title, which necessitated filing of the suit.

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