KIRAN DAS Vs. UMA RAM BHUYAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree, dated 18.05.2004, passed, in Title Appeal No. 6/2003, by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, upholding the judgment and decree, dated 30.05.2003, passed, in Title Suit No. 254/1998, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Guwahati, whereby the plaintiff -appellant's suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. It is, thus, against such concurrent findings of the learned two Courts below that this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff as the appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant's case is, in brief, thus : The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land, the possession having been received by the plaintiff from the defendants, on 29.11.1985, by virtue of an agreement, whereunder the defendants had agreed and promised to sell the suit land in consideration of a sum of Rs.40,000.00 to the plaintiff. The defendants, who are husband and wife, accepted a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 on the date of the agreement for sale i.e., on 29.11.1985, and handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff accordingly on that very day. The defendants, thereafter, received from the plaintiff the balance consideration amount for sale and obtained the requisite permission for effecting the sale. However, as the defendants did not execute the requisite sale deed, despite repeated demands raised, in this regards, by the plaintiff, the requisite sale deed was registered, on 13.04.1995, at the office of the Sub -Registrar, Panighat, on 13.04.1995. The suit land has, thereafter, been mutated in the name of the plaintiff and she has been paying land revenue therefor. However, all of a sudden, on 08.12.1998, the defendants, accompanied by some others, trespassed into the land in the absence of the plaintiff and damaged a part of the bamboo fencing, which had been erected by the plaintiff, the damage to the bamboo fencing having been done by the defendants in order to forcibly occupy the suit land. When the plaintiff and her husband objected to the illegal activities of the defendants, the defendants threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. In these circumstances, the plaintiff sought for, inter alia, declaration of her rights, title and interest to the suit land and confirmation of her possession thereon. At the same time, the plaintiff also sought for ejectment of the defendants from a part of the suit land and also recovery of possession thereof.

(3.) BECAUSE of the denial of the defendants that they had executed the sale deed, in question, the trial court framed an issue in this regard. This issue, (i.e., the issue No.5), read as follows: