ABDUL JABBAR Vs. RUFINA KHATUN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Title Suit No. 16 of 1993 was brought about by one Sri Ahmed Ali (now represented by his legal heirs) and the same was instituted before the Court of the Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj praying for a preliminary decree for declaration of his title and the land measuring 1 Jastis out of a total 5 Jastis of land situated in Dag No. 1706 of Khaitan No. 245 of Village-Deorail in Chapghat Mouza of Badarpur P.S., District Karimganj. The said declaration was sought on account of his purchase of the land in question. Declaration was also sought for confirming land holders right and for partition with confirmation of possession. Prayer was also made for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 i.e. Abdul Jabbar from constructing any temporary or permanent house on the land bounded by the scheduled boundaries to the plaint and for a direction to remove any structure or obstacle from the land in question that may be raised by Abdul Jabbar i.e. Defendant No. 1. According to the original plaintiff the land bounded by the scheduled boundaries belonged to Late Formuj Ali who was the predecessor-in-interest of both the defendant No. 1 Abdul Jabbar and Proforma Defendant No. 2 i.e. Abdul Bari. It is the case of the original plaintiff that the said Proforma Defendant No. 2 sold land measuring 1 jastis to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1993 and thereby transferred the land and handed over possession to the plaintiff. However, problems arose when the appellant defendant No. 1 made attempts to construct a RCC house on the said land by engaging labourers. The said defendant No.1 without paying heed to the objection of the original plaintiff carried on with the hindrances, as a result of which the original plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

(3.) The appellant-defendant No. 1 contested the suit and had also filed a written statement pleading, interalia, that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, in that, the successor and sisters of Formuj Ali, being shareholders in respect of the land, have not been impleaded in the suit. According to the appellant/defendant No. 1 the original plaintiff did not purchase any part of the scheduled land and, in fact, the predecessor-in-interest i.e. Formuj Ali was not the owner or title holder or possessor of the suit land. Alleging that the averments made in the plaint were absolutely false and that it was only an attempt on the part of the original plaintiff to grab the land in question, the suit had been filed. According to the appellant/defendant No. 1 the suit land and land contiguous thereto on the south side was purchased by one Matasin Ali from the plaintiff's father by means of a registered sale deed No. 933 dated 31.03.1954 and thereafter on the strength of a lease deed entered into with Matasin Ali, the appellant/defendant No. 1 was residing on the suit land by constructing a kacha house initially and thereafter in an RCC building which was nearing completion. It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that in order to prevent completion of the RCC building on the suit land, two earlier attempts had been made at the instance of the plaintiff, being Title Suit No. 6/1993 and Title Suit No. 21 of 1993. The appellant / defendant No. 1 states that the plaintiff being unsuccessful in the said two attempts, has now filed the present suit.