ON THE DEATH OF GUNARAM RAJBANGSHI HIS LEGAL HEIRS SRIMATI BASANTIPRIYA RAJBANGSHI AND ORS. Vs. DAMBARUDHAR KEOT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of tenancy right and recovery of possession of the land described in schedule 'Ka' attached to the plaint.

(2.) THE Plaintiff 's case as set out in the plaint is that the land belonged to Defendants Nos. 10 to 20 covered by Kheraj and Nispi Kheraj pattas of village Baragog, Mouza Madartola. District Kamrup The land was let out to the grandfather of the Plaintiff and afterwards it was inherited by Plaintiff 's father late Mohiram and uncle Holiram It should be pointed out that the suit was brought by Sri Gunaram Rajbangshi but subsequent to the decision of the court below, he is also dead and his heirs have been brought on the record Gunaram Rajbangshi alleged that he was enjoying the land as a raivat. In 1352 B.S. corresponding to 1945 A.D. the late Plaintiff Gunaram Rajbangshi suffered from gastric ulcer and was admitted in the Medical College hospital al Dibrugarh Defendants Nos. 1 to 9 were then possessing the land from Srimali Basanti Priya Rajbangshi on adhi terms. The publicity was given by Defendants Nos. 1 to 9 that late Plaintiff Gunaram was dead and the wife of Gunaram Rajbangshi was taken away by her father to his own village Bhomlahati In 1954 Gunaram recovered and joined his service He came home and found that the Defendants Nos. 1 to 9 were in possession of the land after demolishing his houses He asked them to vacate the land but they gave out that they have taken the land from Defendant No. 10. Thereafter he approached Defendant No. 10 who first assured him that he would deliver possession to him But on the 26th February 1957 Defendant No. 10 expressed his inability to restore possession and thereafter the present suit was brought for the reliefs already mentioned, on the 26th July, 1957.

(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit. On appeal the decision of the trial court has been reversed and in the present appeal by the Plaintiff the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate court has been challenged.