HANIF ALI Vs. ALOK KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2002 and decree dated 04.12.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No. 2, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 01/2000 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff by reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Pragjyotispur in 111 T.S. No. 66/1996, subsequently, re -numbered as T.S. No. 10/1999. The second appeal was admitted vide order dated 07.02.2003 to be heard on the following substantial questions of law: - -

(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendant No. 1, by filing his written statement whereby the defendant has denied and disputed the claims made in the plaint. The projected case of the defendant No. 1 is that the suit land measuring about 2 bighas covered by Dag Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of K.P. Patta No. 1 Bonda F.S. No. 2, Mouza Beltola, originally belonged to its recorded pattadar, Sri Jadulal Mukherjee, Dhirendralal Mukherjee and Nirendralal Mukherjee. The aforesaid plot of land had been purchased by one Manu Gogoi from its recorded pattadars and subsequently, the defendant No. 1 purchased the possessory right in respect of the suit land from Manu Gogoi. It is the specific case of the defendant that he has been in continuous physically possession of the suit land since 1984 and therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff in the plaint is completely without any basis.

(3.) THE plaintiff side examined 4 witnesses and exhibited some documents whereas the defendant had examined four witnesses. Ex. 1 is the copy of jamabandi pertaining to K.P. patta No. 1 which have been produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim of title over the suit land. Ex. 2 is the series of revenue receipts. The order dated 03.01.1997 passed in case No. 586m/1996 in connection with the proceeding drawn under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. had been exhibited by the plaintiff as Ex. 3, whereas, the Ex. 4 is the written statement filed by the DW.1 in connection with the said case. The plaintiff relied upon the oral testimony of the witnesses and the aforementioned documents to established his claim for declaration of right, title and interest as well as recovery of possession in respect of the suit land. On discussing the materials available on record, the learned trial court answered all the issues against the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove and establish his right, title and interest over the suit land. The learned trial court has also held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the respondent plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 01/2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Guwahati. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No. 2, allowed the title appeal filed by the respondent plaintiff by answering the issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has been able to prove and establish his claim of title over the suit land and also that the suit was not barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the defendant No. 1, appellant has preferred the instant second appeal.