PRANESH CHAKRABORTY Vs. NETAI BANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

(2.) This second appeal is presented against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Appeal No. 10/2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Tezpur in Title Suit No. 65/1997.

(3.) The case set out in the plaint, inter -alia, is that suit land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lecha was owned by Late Parbati Charan Chakravorty and he executed a registered Gift Deed dated 06.01.1986 in favour of his minor grandson, Sri Sudip Chakravorty @ Bachu, who is the son of defendant No. 1. It is alleged that when minor Sudip was in the womb of his mother, the defendant No. 1 drove her out from the residence at Dekhiajuli, and compelled by circumstances, she went to live with her brother at Village Rajagaon, in the district of Nagaon, where Sudip was born. Mother of Sudip was appointed as guardian of the person and landed property of the minor by an order dated 16.02.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Misc (G) Case No. 50/1995. The appointed guardian, after obtaining requisite permission from the learned District Judge, Sonitpur to sell the aforesaid 1 Bigha 5 Kathas of land, sold the said land by a registered sale deed dated 16.03.1996 in favour of the plaintiff and possession was also handed over to him. It is averred that after taking physical possession, boundary fencing was erected and 40 Nos. of betel -nut trees were planted. By a registered rectification deed dated 21.03.1997, correction was made with respect to name of her son. It is also stated that the wife of the plaintiff had a plot of land which was on the northern side of the suit land and he was residing there along with his wife. The defendant No. 1 forcefully removed the bamboo fencing on the very day when boundary was fenced and chopped off the betel -nut trees. It is alleged that the plaintiff was falsely implicated in a case under Section 366 -A I.P.C. and was arrested and, when he was in custody, the defendant No. 1 erected wire fencing on 22.08.1996, and thereafter, a brick wall, with the aid and advice of defendant No. 2, was constructed. The plaintiff was also implicated in another case under Sections 447/447/506 I.P.C. In both the cases, the plaintiff was acquitted. With these allegations, suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit land and for recovery of possession as well as permanent injunction.