JAMELA KHATOON AND OTHERS Vs. RAM NAGINA MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RSA No. 40/2000 and CRP No. 86/2000 are directed against the judgement and decree dated 16.12.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Tinsukia in Title Appeal No. 10/96 affirming the judgement and decree passed in Title Suit No. 1/96 by the learned Munsiff No. II, Tinsukia. As an abundant precaution the Civil Revision has been filed to salvage the situation in the event no substantial question of law is discernible in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was admitted on 31.3.2000 for hearing on the substantial question of law:-

(2.) I have heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants/revision petitioners and Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Nazmul Huda, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed Title Suit No. 1/96 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. II, Tinsukia for declaration of title over the suit land described in Schedule-A to the plaint and for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant (respondent) for non-payment of rent and also for recovery of arrears of rent and compensation. On the demise of Nazmul Huda, the appellants have been substituted as his legal heirs. Their case is that Nazmul Huda purchased the suit land along with the structures standing thereon from the original owner Smt. Rabia Khatun (pro forma defendant) by Sale Deed No. 183/88. The respondent herein was in occupation of the house standing on the suit land as monthly tenant under the original owners at a rent of Rs. 50 per month. The respondent paid rent upto Jan. 1988 and defaulted thereafter. Notice dated 5.3.1988 was issued to the respondent to attorn the original plaintiff as landlord. The notice was ignored and no rent was paid. The respondent with ulterior object in mind collected building materials for construction on the suit land on and from 25.9.1988. Consequent thereupon, the suit was filed.