MANGILAL AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 35 of 1986. By the said judgment and order the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit before the learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh against the State of Assam, Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh and Sub-Deputy Collector, Moran for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. The area of the suit land is 4 katha 193/4 lessas and covered by Dag No. 437 (Part Ka), Dag No. 104 (Part Ka) and Dag No. 491 (Part Ka and Ga). According to the plaintiff this land was settled by the State Government with him. The land is situated in the Moran Town. The plaintiff also claimed that as per direction of the State Government the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. Subsequently however the defendants threatened verbally to evict the plaintiff and hence the suit.

(3.) Defendants appeared but failed to file written statement in spite of adjournments granted by learned trial Court. It is stated Mr. Banerjee, learned Govt. Advocate that an objection was filed against the injunction giving full details with the stands of the defendants. The suit proceeded ex parte and the plaintiff deposed before the Court and also exhibited certain documents. However, the learned trial Court rejected the case of the plaintiff, mainly on the ground that the settlement order was not duly signed by the issuing authority and the land was not in possession of the plaintiff. On these grounds the trial Court held that the land was not in possession with the plaintiff. It is not necessary to state elaborately what is stated in the impugned judgment, I may record here that while admitting this appeal this Court directed, in the interim, the possession of the plaintiff shall not be disturbed.