MAILATA TALUKDAR Vs. JOY KANTA TALUKDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant Nos.1 to 9 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barpeta, in Title Appeal No.10/2002, allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barpeta, in Title Suit No.99/1997, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was initially dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent No.1 as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for partition of the land measuring 57 bighas 3 kathas 0 lecha described in Schedule -A to the plaint and declaration of right, title and interest in respect of 9 bighas 3 kathas 13 lechas of land covered by Dag No.202 of K.P. Patta No.15 (Schedule -B), which is part of the Schedule -A land as his share being 1/7th of the Schedule -A land, contending inter alia that Schedule -A land apart from other annual patta land originally belonged to Faguna, who died in the year 1926 and had 7(seven) sons including the plaintiff, the predecessor -in -interest of the defendant Nos.1 to 7, namely, Madhab Talukdar, defendant No.8 Madan Talukdar, defendant No.9 Prankrishna Talukdar, predecessor -in -interest of the proforma defendant Nos.1 to 8, namely, Girish Ch. Talukdar, predecessor -in -interest of the proforma defendant Nos.9 to 13, namely, Satish Ch. Talukdar and the predecessor -in -interest of the proforma defendant Nos.14 to 20, namely, Jadab Talukdar. It has also been pleaded that the land belonging to Faguna was partitioned amongst the 6(six) sons by the family settlement dated 15.04.1960 (Ext. -2), leaving aside Satish Talukdar, another brother of the plaintiff, as he was settled in Kolkata and not interested in the ancestral property and by virtue of such partition the land described in Schedule -B fell in the share of the plaintiff, which he earlier enjoyed through Girish Ch. Talukdar, predecessor -in -interest of the proforma defendant Nos.1 to 8. The further pleaded case is that the plaintiff when claimed his right, title and interest in respect of the Schedule -B land, which property he got by virtue of the partition, the same having been denied by the defendant Nos.1 to 9, he has to brought the suit for declaration as aforesaid and also for recovery of khas possession.

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