LAWS(GAU)-2014-8-62

BIRENDRA NATH HAZARIKA Vs. MUKITUR RAHMAN

Decided On August 19, 2014
Birendra Nath Hazarika Appellant
V/S
Mukitur Rahman Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A judgment of reversal passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon, in Title Appeal No.44 of 2004 on 23.06.2005 allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff has been assailed in the present Second Appeal by the sole defendant.

(2.) Respondent Md. Mukitur Rahman as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 104 of 1997 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Nagaon stating that a plot of land measuring 6 lechas covered by Dag No. 2248 under periodic Patta No. 1142 covered by Mouza Nagaon Twon Kisamat was originally owned by his father. The suit land was initially covered by Dag No. 423 (old). The plaintiff inherited the land on death of his father in the year 1955-60 and consequently a new dag being Dag No. 2248 was curved out from original Dag No.423. Dag No. 2248 measuring 6 lechas of land stands in the name of the plaintiff but the sole defendant who is the next door neighbour of the plaintiff at the Eastern boundary of the suit land, dispossessed him on 18.05.1997. It is the case of the plaintiff that he raised protest, however, to no avail. Thereafter, he approached the Revenue Authority for demarcation of boundary between him and the defendant. With these averments of fact, the plaintiff made a prayer for declaring right, title and interest and recovery of Khass possession.

(3.) On being summoned the defendant appeared and submitted his written statement specifically denying that there was no encroachment in the land of the plaintiff. The defendant denied to have dispossessed the plaintiff on 18.05.1997 or on any other date. According to the defendant there was an old pucca boundary wall made of brick over 20 years at the Eastern boundary of the suit land demarcating the land of the plaintiff and the defendant and so the question of encroachment did not arise. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned Court framed as many as 7 issues. Later on an additional issue being issue No.8 was also framed. Issues No. 1 to 8 are quoted below: