PREMANANDA BARUAH Vs. AJIT PHUKAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad-hoc), at Jorhat, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in totality on the ground that the Exhibit-1 (document of title) on the basis of which the present appellant/plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit land was not a valid one being hit by Section 29 of the Registration Act, 1908. The present appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 99 of 2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jorhat on 14.12.2000 stating that one Smt. Aikon Barua being absolute owner of the suit land measuring 5 Bigha 3 Katha 18 Lechas, sold the same jointly to the plaintiff Premananda Baruah and his brother Durga Prasad Boruah by registered Sale Deed No. 4391 dated 24.06.1980. In the sale deed it was specifically mentioned that Premananda Baruah would get 3/4th (three-fourth) of the suit land and Durga Prasad Baruah who is the defendant No. 2 herein got 1/4th (one-fourth) of the said land. According to this calculation, the defendant No. 2 Durga Prasad Boruah gets only 7 Katha 5 Lechas of land where as plaintiff got 4 Bigha 1 Katha 13 Lechas of land. It is the case of the plaintiff that he entered into an agreement with one Ajit Phukan in the year 1995 permitting him to cultivate the land for one year and to hand over the same land to him after the month of December 1995 with further condition that defendant No. 1 would pay Rs. 1,500/- to him as rent, whereas the defendant paid only Rs. 400/-. Ajit Phukan not only failed to make payment of the balance sum but also dispossessed him with respect to 2 Bigha of the suit land in the year 1996. Aggrieved, the appellant/plaintiff immediately filed complaint case against the defendant No. 1 on 19.06.1996, 12.08.1996, 14.08.1996 & 19.09.1996 but as the matter was not disposed of, the defendant No. 1 got an opportunity against him. However, on 20.09.1996, the land was attached by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jorhat. With these averments of facts, the plaintiff claimed for a decree for declaring his right, title and interest in respect of 3/4th (three-fourth) share of his land in 5 Bigha 3 Kama 18 Lechas and also for confirmation of possession and recovery of possession of the suit land.

(2.) Although notices were duly served upon the defendants but they chose not to appear in the case and so, the suit proceeded ex parte against all the defendants. The plaintiff examined himself and one Pobindra Kumar Das as P.W. 2. This P.W. 2 being an employee in the office of Sub-Registrar, Guwahati, proved volume of the aforesaid Sale Deed No. 4391 of 1980 and deposed that the Sale Deed had been duly registered. The suit land is situated at Jorhat and the Sale Deed was executed by Registrar at Guwahati. On this ground the learned trial court held that the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest to the suit land on the basis of Exhibit-1 Sale Deed dated 24.06.1980. The learned trial court placed reliance on Section 29 of the Registration Act which requires that a sale deed should be registered within the jurisdiction of the same district where the suit land is situated. The judgment and decree dismissing the suit was passed on 02.05.2003 and it is against this judgment and decree the present First Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant is heard. None appears for the learned counsel for the respondents although notices were duly served upon them. Having so found the appeal is taken up for ex-parte hearing against the respondents as service on the respondents is complete.