CHANDIPUR TEA ESTATE Vs. DEVILAL BASFOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff of Title Suit No.30/2005 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Hailakandi has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the first appellate judgment and decree dated 16.05.2007. The learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) The facts involved in the Second Appeal are required to be stated before entering into the merit of the Second Appeal. The present appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.30/2005 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Hailakandi stating that it is a company having head office at Calcutta and is engaged in the business of production, manufacture and sale of tea at Chandipur Tea Estate within the jurisdiction of the Court. The suit land belonged to it and occurs at the center of the garden. In the month of March, 2005, when the plaintiff company wanted to raise the suit land, which is a low lying land, the defendant and their family members raised objection and threatened the employees of the Tea Estate with dire consequences. Situated thus, the plaintiff instituted a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. before the learned Executive Magistrate and thereafter instituted the suit praying for a decree declaring its right, title and interest over the suit land and for confirmation/recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant or any person occupying the land through them. A prayer for temporary and permanent injunction was also prayed for. The suit land was described to be a land measuring 1 bigha 11 katha 3 chattaks covered by 2nd R.S. Patta No.1, Dag No.41 of Mouza -Bashbari, Phargana ­ Saraspur in the district of Hailakandi. Specific boundaries were also mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.

(3.) On being summoned, the sole defendant appeared and submitted written statement. In paragraph 11 of the written statement it was claimed that the defendant has been in peaceful possession of the suit land and that the plaintiff does not have any possession in respect thereto. In paragraph 14 it is further stated that on 09.03.2005 plaintiff by engaging its employees and labourers tried to dispossess the defendant from the suit land and also caused damage to the pig farm of the defendant and further sold away the fish from the pond. With these prayers the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.