BIJOY KUMAR BARUAH Vs. KONMAI BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) THE present appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.37/2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Jorhat, on 10.07.2000 stating that the suit land measuring 1B 3K 15Ls described in Schedule-A to the plaint is owned by the plaintiff and the proforma defendants No.2 and 3 by inheritance. According to the plaintiff, the land was originally owned and possessed by Ramkumar Baruah, his father, and defendant No.1, Basanta Kumar Baruah, happens to be the step brother of said Ramkumar Baruah. Ramkumar Baruah purchased the suit land in the year 1966 from one Sidananda Bhuyan, Someswar Bhuyan and Rameswar Bhuyan and he obtained mutation to the suit land vide order dated 15.03.1966 passed by the learned Sub-Deputy Collector of Jorhat. Ramkumar Baruah died in the year 1997 and accordingly the plaintiff and the proforma defendants No.2 and 3 got their names duly mutated in the records of rights by right of inheritance on 24.02.2000. Ramkumar Baruah and his brothers, the proforma defendants No.2 and 3 had permitted the defendant No.1 way back in 1996 to make a temporary structure on the suit land for his dwelling purpose but after death of Ramkumar Baruah defendant No.1 occupied the entire suit land and refused to vacate on being asked to do so. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 does not have any semblance of right, title and interest thereto as the suit land is the purchased property of Ramkumar Baruah. With these averments prayer was made for passing a decree declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants No.2 and 3 over the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant No.1 and demolishing and removing the structures built by him over the suit land.

(3.) ON being summoned the defendant No.1 appeared and submitted written statement wherein he claimed that the suit land was originally owned by Manik Baruah, father of Ramkumar Baruah, Basanta Kumar Baruah and Prafulla Kumar Baruah. Manik Baruah had married twice. While Ramkumar was born to the first wife, Basanta Kumar and Prafulla Kumar were born after death of the first wife from the second wife of Manik Baruah. Basanta Kumar and Prafulla Kumar were young when Manik Baruah died and so Ramkumar Baruah being the eldest brother reared and nurtured them. The property having been acquired by Manik Baruah it devolved on his legal heirs including Basanta Kumar and Prafulla Kumar. Basanta Kumar Baruah being defendant No.1 was permitted by Ramkumar Baruah during his lifetime to exclusively and absolutely own and possess the suit land whereas the other properties were retained by him. This was done because there was no enough accommodation in the paternal residential house. The defendant No.1, therefore, claimed that he being the legal heir of Manik Baruah has valid right, title and interest to the suit land and it is rather the plaintiff and the proforma defendants No.2 and 3 who having other properties do not have any right, title and interest with respect to the suit land described in Schedule-A to the plaint. He, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost. It may be mentioned herein that Basanta Kumar being defendant No.1 filed his written statement and after his death when his legal heirs were impleaded the impleaded defendants also filed a separate written statement, however, maintaining the same stand and thus there are two sets of written statement on behalf of the defendant No.1.