CHANDRA SAKHI SINGHA Vs. BIDYA PATI SINGHA (SINHA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession with a part of suit land and recovery of possession over the Schedule -3 land was dismissed by the learned trial court in Title Suit No. 88 of 1998. Title Appeal No. 29 of 2003 preferred in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi, was dismissed against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, the plaintiffs have approached this Court.

(2.) THE plaintiffs Chandra Sakhi Singha and her father Moniraj Singh instituted Title Suit No. 88 of 1998 in the Court of learned Junior Division No. 1 at Hailakandi stating that Binodini Singha, the grandmother of the plaintiff No. 1 being owner in possession of the suit land measuring 7 Bighas 18 Kathas 12 Chataks gifted the same to the plaintiff No. 1 on 08.01.1983 by a gift deed which was registered on 10.01.1983 and handed over vacant possession. The plaintiff No. 1 claimed to have accepted the deed and managed the same through her grandfather Subal Singha who is none other than the husband of the donor and when Subal Singha died in the year 1993. Plaintiff No. 2 being father of the plaintiff No. 1 was looking after the gifted property. Binodini Singha died in the year 1997 and thereafter, defendant No. 1 having entered into conspiracy with others sought to dispossess the plaintiffs from the Schedule 1 & 2 land. Being compelled, the plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest and possession thereof. It is stated that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs were dispossessed from Schedule 3 land on 05.01.1999 and so, by making amendment of the plaint, prayer for recovery of Khas possession from this land was also prayed.

(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 3 to 6 filed separate written statement and supported the contesting defendants No. 1. The defendant No. 2 died during pendency of the suit and his name was strike off from the array of parties. Upon pleadings of the parties learned Court below framed as many as 7 issued as follows: