RUPAN KISHAN Vs. NARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree, dated 30. 7. 2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Darrang, in Title Appeal No. 02/2000, dismissing the appeal and affirming thereby the judgment and decree, dated 09. 12. 1999, passed, in Title Suit No. 30/1992, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang, whereby the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of their rights, title and interest over the suit land was decreed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs may, in brief, be described thus : The suit land, which was, originally, covered by Dag No. 123 of Periodic Patta No. 73/74, in village Patabill, under Orang Mouza, belonged to, and was owned by, one Smt. Konwar Gaurani, wife of Late Bhagat Singh. The plaintiffs purchased, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 23. 1. 1974, the suit land from Smt. Konwar Gaurani, on consideration of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and took possession of the suit land accordingly. Having taken over possession of the land, the plaintiffs cultivated the same, grew paddy thereon and paid revenue therefor. On 16. 7. 1974, the defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, then, initiated a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. This proceeding ended with declaration of possession in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs, then, filed a revision and the order, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, declaring the possession of the suit land in favour of the defendant, was set aside. The plaintiffs could not, however, peacefully remain in possession of the suit land. Left with no alternative, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking declaration of their rights, title and interest over the suit land, recovery of khas possession thereof and permanent injunction.

(3.) THE defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement, his case being, in brief, thus: Smt. Konwar Gaurani aforementioned had no saleable right over the suit property. The defendant's father used to be in possession of the suit land on the strength of an annual patta, which had been issued in the name of Ganesh Kishan, father of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs had not acquired any title to the land and they had never been in possession thereof. The defendant, therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.