ABDUL ALI AND ORS. Vs. IBRAHIM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2002 and 21.06.2002, respectively, passed by the learned District Judge, Barpeta, whereby the learned First Appellate Court allowed the Title Appeal No. 9 of 1996 filed by the respondent/plaintiff decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and at the same time dismissing the Title Appeal No. 11 of 1996 filed by the present appellants/contesting defendants thereby upholding that part of the decree passed by the learned trial Court in Title Suit No. 22 of 1991 whereby the counter-claim of the appellants/defendants was rejected. The Second Appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law:--

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that he had purchased land measuring 3 bigha 2 katha covered by dag No. 421 of P.P. No. 168 of village Bheraldi under Barpeta Mouza from its registered owner Ranjan Das by means of a registered deed of sale bearing No. 1355 dated 10.11.1989 and thereafter was put in possession of the land. His name in respect of the said plot of land was also mutated on 16.03.1990 on the basis of his title and possession. In and around the same time the plaintiff had purchased another plot of land measuring 2 katha 10 lechas from its registered owner Latika Medhi i.e. the pro-forma defendant No. 2, by means of a registered deed of sale bearing No. 1552 dated 25.10.1991 pursuant whereto he took over possession of the said land. His name was also entered into the jamabandi in respect of the plot of land and he had been possessing the land by raising dwelling houses thereon where the plaintiff had set up a grocery shop. In the aforesaid manner, the plaintiff had therefore purchased a total area of land measuring 3 bigha 4 katha 10 lechas described in Schedule-B to the plaint. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent that appellants/defendant No. 1-3 threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land on 04.11.1991 which in effect has clouded the title and possession of the plaintiff from the suit land. The respondent/plaintiff was therefore compelled to institute Title Suit No. 22/1991 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta praying for a decree declaring his right, title and interest over the suit land, a decree for confirmation of possession and further praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the contesting defendants.

(3.) The defendants Nos. 1 to 3/appellants contested the case of the plaintiff by filing joint written statement. Besides taking the formal plea of objection pertaining to maintainability of the plaintiffs suit, plea of limitation, absence of cause action and improper valuation of the suit, the contesting defendants took the plea that the suit land belonged to their grandmother Gulsera Bibi, who was the original pattadar. The said Gulsera Bibi did not transfer the ownership of the suit land in favour of anybody. As such, the vendors of the plaintiff, i.e. Ranjan Das, son of Prafulla Das, who had executed the sale deed No. 1355 and Smti. Latika Medhi, daughter of Mahadev Nabis, who had executed the sale deed No. 1552 did not have any saleable interest in the suit land. The contesting defendants, however, did not dispute the fact that the suit land originally belonged to Gulsera Bibi which is also the pleaded stand of the plaintiff. On the basis of such plea the defendants No. 1 to 3/appellants had also filed a counter-claim praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and also for confirmation of possession with a further prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds bearing No. 1355 and 1552 on the ground of those being fraudulently obtained. Claiming possession over the suit land, the aforesaid contesting defendants had prayed for a decree of permanent injunction and also for declaring that the mutation granted in favour of the plaintiff are null and void.