RAM PRASAD KURMI Vs. SURAJ NATH GOALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of reversal. Initially the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 8. 4. 1994. The plaintiffs instituted Title Appeal No. 32/1994 challenging the aforementioned judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit and the decree having been reversed by the learned first Appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants in the suit.

(2.) THE case of the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint filed, shortly put, is that one Binoy Mazumdar was the owner of the suit land and the predecessor of the defendants, one Satyanarayan Kurmi, had taken the suit land on lease by a registered lese deed dated 5. 2. 1961, for a period of ten years. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants predecessor and his brother one Haricharan Kurmi attempted of take forcible possession of the land adjacent to the suit land for which reason Binory Mazumdar, as the plaintiff, instituted a sui being Title Suit No. 63 of 1984 which was decreed exparte. The experte decree in the said suit was put to execution in Title Execution Case No. 2 of 1987. While the aforesaid execution case was pending, Sri Binoy Mazumdar, by a registered sale deed dated 18. 5. 1987 transferred his right, title and interest in the suit land alongwith other lands to the plaintiffs who are brothers and by virtue of the aforesaid transfer the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, they had got themselves impleaded in the execution proceeding in place of Binoy Mazumdar and as, in the meantime, the predecessor of the defendants Satyanarayan Kurmi had died, on an application filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants were substituted in place of Satyanarayan Kurmi in the Title Execution Case in question. In the plaint filed it was further averred that the predecessor of the defendants and after his death the defendants are not paying rent in terms of the lease deed and that the defendants had become defaulters. It was further averred that the defendants had violated the terms of the lease and that the suit land was required by the plaintiffs for their bona fide use for starting a new business. In these circumstances a notice dated 24. 2. 1989 terminating the lease was issued by the plaintiffs and as the defendants in spite of receipt of the said notice had not vacated the land in question, the suit was field for a decree of eviction against the defendants by demolition of the house and structures standing thereon.

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement wherein, after denying the averments made in the plaint, the defendants had categorically asserted that the suit land is a part of Bhorakhai Tea Estate, originally owned by M/s Duncan and Company. According to the defendants, Late Satyanarayan Kurmi took settlement of a total area of 14 kathas 5 chataks of land from Duncan and Company which included the suit land. Thereafter, the predecessors in interest of the defendants constructed their houses on the suit land and since then they have been residing thereon and carrying on their business. In the written statement filed, the defendants also averred that subsequently, by purchase, Sri Binoy Mazumdar became the owner of Bhorakhai Tea Estate and the predecessors of the contesting defendants, Late Satyanarayan Kurmi, had paid rent to Binoy Mazumdar. However, the suit land including other lands, according to the defendants, was acquired by the Government under the provisions of Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 and thereafter khatians were granted to the predecessors in interest of the defendants. In these circumstances, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs have no locus to file the suit claiming the relief of eviction and that the purchase of the suit land by plaintiffs from Binoy Mazumdar is void, illegal and collusive. On the aforesaid basis the defendants had prayed for dismissal of the suit.