SRI ANIL BAWRI, SON OF HARADHAN BAWRI Vs. SRI ANIL CHANDRA SARMAH ADHYAPAK, SON OF SRI JADAV CHANDRA SARMAH ADHYAPAK, VILLAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 21.12.2005 this Second Appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Title Suit No.3 of 2002 was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff Sri Anil Chandra Sarmah Adhyapak before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Golaghat praying for khas possession of the suit land as described in the schedule to the plaint by evicting the defendants therein i.e. Sri Anil Bawri and others. The suit land comprises of a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas covered by Dag No. 308 of PP No. 29 under Kaziranga Mouza Bokakhat, Sub Division Golaghat. The case set out by the respondent/plaintiff, in brief, was that he had purchased the suit land from one Sri Dayal Kayastha on 17.11.1975 by executing a registered Sale Deed (Exhibit-4). On such purchase the respondent/plaintiff allowed Dayal Kayastha to remain in possession of his house situated on the suit land. Said Dayal Kayastha died in the year 1993 and after his death his widow Maloti Kayastha (Proforma Defendant No.3 in the suit) permitted Anil Bawri and Lakhi Bawri to stay in that house. However, at one point of time said Maloti Kayastha left to reside with her daughter at Mowkhuti. Thereafter, on 31.01.1995 the respondent/plaintiff had asked the appellants/defendants to vacate the suit land and on their refusal to do so had instituted a case under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Court, which however, was dismissed. Hence the suit for khas possession evicting the appellants/defendants from the suit land.

(3.) The appellants/defendants had contested the suit by filing written statement, contending, inter alia, that the respondent/plaintiff had no right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit land. In all, the suit is vague, barred by limitation, not maintainable and undervalued.