MONOJ DIHINGIA Vs. NABIN KR. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Banerjee , learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P.P.Baruah, learned counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) This is an appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhemaji, in Title Suit No. 13/98.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, is that the appellants as plaintiffs instituted a Title Suit, mentioned above, before the Court of learned District Judge, against the respondents defendants originally praying for a decree of ejectment of the defendant No.1 who was a tenant in respect of the house, let out by the plaintiff/ appellant to the said defendants/ respondents and also to declare right, title, interest over the suit land, with a further prayer for declaration of Sale Deed dated 24.04.1967, as void, illegal and for its cancellation, which was allegedly made in favour of the Respondents No. 2 and 3. The father of the appellants, late Mahendra Nath Dihingia, was the owner of a plot of total land measuring 3 Bighas 4 Kathas 2 lechas under periodic Patta No. 42 Dag No. 180 and under periodic patta No. 43, dag No. 182 of Block No. 2 of Dhemaji Town. Out of that, land 2 kathas 10 lechas is the suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint. The father died in 1981 and gave the suit land in favour of the appellants in 1978 and on 30.12.1978, the names of the appellants were recorded on Revenue Record as Pattadars of the said Suit Land. The appellant No. 1 had constructed his permanent dwelling houses over the suit land during the lifetime of his father. He subsequently let out some of his houses constructed over a period of time over the said suit land, on monthly rental basis, including Respondent No.1/ defendant No.1. However, the Respondent No.1 has failed to pay his due rents and denied the ownership of the appellants over the suit land and claimed to be a tenant under the Respondents No.2 and 3. Hence, the said suit was filed by the plaintiffs/ appellants. The appellants has been paying revenue and other municipal taxes and other dues to the authorities concerned and relevant receipts have already been submitted before the Court below.