NECHAN CH. DAS Vs. BIMALA BALA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barpeta, in Title Appeal No.13/1999 allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants in Title Suit No.95/1995 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barpeta, in the said suit, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) THE appellant as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit, against the present respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the predecessor-in- interest of the present respondent Nos.4 to 9, for declaration of his title by right of adverse possession and for confirmation of possession as well as for issuance of the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land measuring 4 bighas 4 kathas 3 lechas covered by dag No.62, K.P. Patta No.5 of village Jyoti, Mouza-Barpeta, in the district of Barpeta, more fully described in Schedule-B to the plaint, contending inter alia that he was the owner and possessor of 9 bighas 4 kathas 3 lechas of land described in Schedule-A to the plaint, out of which he sold 5 bighas of land to one Umesh Ch. Das and retained 4 bighas 4 kathas 3 lechas of land with him. It has further been pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff borrowed Rs.3,500.00 from his friend Amulya Prasad Das, the original defendant No.4, on 06.10.1976 to meet the expenses for treatment of his wife in Guwahati, by putting his signature in blank stamp paper, which, however, were subsequently converted to two sale deeds dated 06.10.1976 and 08.10.1976 (Exts.-Ka and Kha, respectively) and got the mutation, about which the plaintiff could know subsequently on 05.09.1977. According to the plaintiff, though he went to return the said amount of Rs.3,500.00 to the defendant No.4, he refused to accept the same and has informed the plaintiff that he in fact has sold the land in the name of his sons and wife by the aforesaid two registered deeds. According to the plaintiff, he has never parted with the possession of the suit land and has been continuously, openly and adversely possessing the same against the interest of the defendants and as such he has acquired the prescriptive right over the suit land by adverse possession.

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