BHABESH DAS Vs. DILIP KR. DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost successively in two courts below, the three defendants of Title Suit No. 45 of 1995 have approached this court by preferring the second appeal against concurrent findings of learned two courts below. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed on 30.7.2002 declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land for recovery of possession and adjudging the sale deed described in Schedule -B to the plaint as forged, fraudulent and illegal etc. the defendants unsuccessfully fought before the learned first appellate court and hence this second appeal. This court while admitting this appeal on 17.6.2015 framed the following substantial question of law:

(2.) THE sole respondent as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.45 of 1995 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Hojai stating that land measuring 4B covered by Dag No.525 of P.P.No.16 of Pamgaon Kiramat originally belonged to his father late Binod Bihari Das. He died leaving behind four sons namely, Babul Das, Anukul Das, Nara Das and plaintiff Dilip Das. The three sons, namely, Babul, Anukul and Nara sold their shares in the land by executing sale deed and it is only plaintiff Dilip Das who retained 1B of his ancestral land under his possession. He thereafter purchased another 2B of land from one Baldev Teli jointly and thereafter he and Nara got the partition. This is how plaintiff was enjoying 2B of land in all out of which 1B of land was ancestral and 1B was acquired. He further states that in the year 1996 he wanted to sell whole of the land to Nantu, Barada and Arunbala and accordingly these three persons made enquiry in the Sub -Registry to find out as to whether the plaintiff had clear title title over the land or not. Upon such enquiry it came to light that by a Registered sale deed dated 4.5.1993, the land had already been sold in favor of the defendants, Bhavesh Chandra Das, Pabitra Das and Narayan Chandra Das.The plaintiff thereafter obtained certified copy of the sale deed and found that it was never executed by him. He, therefore, instituted the title suit for declaration that the sale deed is forged fraudulent and void. In the meantime, plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit by the defendants from the suit land on 6.6.1995 and so prayer for recovery of khas possession was also made.

(3.) ON being summoned, defendants appeared and submitted written statement. They claimed that the plaintiff approached them in the year 1985 for sale of the aforesaid land. At that stage, it was decided between the parties that the defendants would pay half of the price to the plaintiff and would hand over possession of the land and the sale deed would be executed and registered after permission is obtained from the concerned authorities and after payment of the balance sum of money. Accordingly, in the year 1993 permission was obtained and thereafter sale deed was executed and registered by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, they were all along in possession of the land since 1985 and the story of dispossession was incorrect.