GOPAL CHANDRA SHILL Vs. KESHAB CHANDRA SHILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by defendants challenging the appellate judgment of reversal passed by learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 40 of 2000 by judgment dated 13.7.2001 thereby decreeing Title Suit No. 3 of 1996 of the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hojai by setting aside and reversing the trial court's judgment and decree dated 7.8. 2000 passed therein.

(2.) THE predecessor -in -interest of the respondent herein was one Keshab Chandra Shill. He filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1996 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar praying for declaration of right, title and interest and injunction claiming that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of settlement in his favour vide periodic patta No. 629 issued in the year 1984. Defendants do not have any semblance of right, title and interest with respect to the suit but made abortive bid to dispossess the plaintiff on 7.8.1995. It is the further case of the plaintiff the defendant No. 4 surreptitiously got her name mutated in the records of right behind the back of the plaintiff and using such mutation as basic endeavour made to cloud the title of the Plaintiff over the suit land. On being summoned, the defendant appeared and submitted written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. Plaintiff came forward with a specific plea that land measuring 1 bigha was allotted in favour of one Kebal Krishna Shill by Government to rehabilitate him as he is a displaced person from erstwhile East Pakistan. One Kebal Krishna Shill alias Kebal Kumar died leaving behind two sons, Devendra and Surendra. Plaintiff is the son of Devendra Kumar Shill whereas Gopal Ch. Shill, Radha Kanta Shill and Bidhan Ch. Shill are the sons of Surendra Kumar Shill. It is the case of the defendants that the land having been allotted to Kebal Krishna Shill alias Kebal Kumar by the Government all the legal heirs who have right, title and interest over the same by inheritance, and as such, issuance of patta in the name of plaintiff is of no consequence. According to the defendants they approached the revenue authority and their names were duly mutated in recognition to their claims. An appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order of granting mutation also failed. Under such circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial court initially framed Issue Nos. 1 to 8 and subsequently an additional issue being additional issue No. 1 was also framed. Both the original issues and the Additional Issue No. 1 are quoted below for ready reference :