KONLORA BEZ Vs. BAHADUR KAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is at the instance of 4 (four) defendants of Title Suit No. 1/2000 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2 at Jorhat challenging concurrent findings of the learned Courts below.

(2.) RESPONDENTS Dewram Kaman and Bahadur Kaman, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit 30/1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Jorhat on 30th March, 1998. The present appellants were the defendants in the said suit. Plaintiffs claimed therein that a plot of land measuring 10 bighas 2 kathas 5 lechas in Dag No. 1 covered by annual patta No. 78 of Bokajanpam Gaon, Solmora Mouza, Majuli Sub -division of Jorhat district originally stood in the name of the plaintiffs and the same was fit for paddy cultivation. The plaintiffs had been in possession of this land for more than 40 (forty) years growing paddy and vegetables but the defendants having no semblance of right, title or interest in the suit land tried to take possession of the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiffs for which plaintiffs had to institute miscellaneous case No. 28/1992 in the Court of learned Executive Magistrate at Majuli under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Executive Magistrate by his order dated 12.04.1993 declared possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The plaintiffs thereafter continued in possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 again trespassed into the suit land in the month of July, 1995 taking chance of helpless condition and poverty of the plaintiffs. Being compelled, plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession by evicting defendants from the scheduled land measuring 10 bighas 2 kathas 5 lechas covered by dag No. 1 of annual patta No. 78 of Bokajanpam Gaon as referred to above. On being summoned, the defendants appeared and submitted written statement denying the story of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, they have been all along in possession of the suit land for over 40 (forty) years and they did not trespass into the land in the month of July, 1995 as stated in the plaint.

(3.) THE learned trial court upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 8 (eight) issues which are quoted below: -