MANASH CHANGMAI Vs. JAY MADHABBARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Sensua, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D.N. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/ caveator.

(2.) The appellant is a third party in the proceedings of Title Execution Case No. 02/2018.

(3.) The copy of plaint has not been annexed to the memo of appeal, and therefore, a photocopy of the amended plaint purportedly filed on 9/4/1999 has been produced by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1. As per the said copy, one Satya Baruah was the plaintiff in T.S. No. 46/1989, which was filed against Mrs. Putali Singh (at some places spelt as Putali Sing) and 23 others for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants, for recovery of arrear rent, future rent and cost of the suit. In the amended plaint, it has been mentioned that the total land of the plaintiff measuring 2 katha- 0 bigha- 2 lessa, covered by Dag no. 2125 and 2126 of K.P. Patta No. 2196 of Sivasagar Town is described in Schedule-A of the plaint, which was allegedly purchased by the plaintiff, and out of the said land, the subject matter of the suit was 1 bigha- 0 katha- 1 lessa land, which has been described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The eviction of the defendants is sought for from the Schedule-B land.