PRANATI SARMA Vs. GANESH PHUKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. SK Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (plaintiff). Also heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent (defendant).

(2.) THE T.S. No.26/2004 was filed for recovery of possession of the suit land under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.R. Act'). The case of the plaintiff is that her future husband Hamen Sarmah was occupying the suit land since the year 1969 as a tenant under the original owner Late Puni Moral. After the plaintiff got married, she came to reside in the suit land with her husband Hamen Sarmah and together they purchased the land in the year 1975, from the original owner, for a sale consideration of Rs.5110/ -. The suit house contained two houses and in the house on the western boundary, the petitioner herself resided and the 2nd house on the eastern boundary, was let out by the plaintiff to one Chandan Bordoloi. As the plaintiff's house became dilapidated, she constructed another house and was hoping to move into the new house shortly but at that stage, the defendant instituted a false case under Section 144 of the CrPC on 19.12.2004 and forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and occupied the newly constructed house. The tenant of the plaintiff from the other house was also dispossessed. Therefore restoration of possession under Section 6 of the S.R. Act was sought in the suit.

(3.) THE defendant in his W.S. claimed to be lawful owner of the suit land which he purchased from the legal heirs of the original owner Late Puni Moral, through a registered sale deed and since the purchase, the defendant is in possession of the suit land. Moreover the plaintiff was projected to be a tenant under the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.500/ - P.M. The defendant denied that Chandan Bordoloi was a tenant of the plaintiff but stated that as a close relative, Chandan Bordoloi resided in the plaintiff's house.