AIKAN MEDHI Vs. PHULA BALAK MEDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 21. 7. 2000, passed, in T. A. No. 03/1997, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tinsukia, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree, dated 13. 02. 1997, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Tinsukia, in Title Suit No. 103/1993.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff may, in brief, be described thus : The defendant No. 1, as owner of the suit land measuring 4 kathas, had sold out the same by four registered sale deeds, dated 12. 8. 64, in favour of four plaintiffs, each of the plaintiffs having purchased 1 katha of the land in consideration of Rs. 2,500/- each. The plaintiffs were also delivered possession of the suit land. After many years, as boundary dispute between the parties arose, the plaintiffs sought for measurement of the land and on 12. 11. 1975, when the Lat Mandal was measuring the land, the plaintiffs were assaulted by the defendants and on the basis of the information lodged by the plaintiffs in this regard, a case under Section 324/34 IPC was registered against the defendants and some others. On 28. 7. 1979, as the plaintiffs (sic.) collected some building materials on the suit land in order to construct houses thereon by dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom, a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was initiated against the defendants by the plaintiff and in this proceeding, an order of attachment of the said land was also passed; but violating this order of attachment, the defendants constructed two thatched houses on the suit land and a proceeding under Section 188 IPC had to be initiated against the defendants. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking, inter alia, declaration of their rights, title, interest and khas possession over the suit land and also for permanent injunction prohibiting and restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit by filling their written statement, their case being, in brief, thus : The husband of the plaintiff No. 1, namely, Utsav Medhi, was the elder brother of the defendant No. 1, namely, Girish Ch. Medhi. The sale deeds, in question, were managed to be executed by Utsav Medhi on the basis of a false hope given to the defendant No. 1 that he (defendant No. 1) would be given a share in the flour mill of the said Utsav Medhi. No consideration for sale of the suit land was received by the defendant No. 1 nor was he given any share in the flour mill as had been promised by his elder brother. The defendant No. 1 does not know English and he can barely write his name in Assamese. As the sale deeds were in English language, the defendant No. 1 did not know what exactly were written there and he merely signed the same by relying on the words of his elder brother that the said deeds would provide for him a share in the said flour mill. However, since no sale of the land, in fact, took place, the possession of the suit land remained with the defendant No. 1 and having failed to obtain possession by launching false prosecution and a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. against the defendants, the plaintiffs have, now, instituted the suit in collusion with each other and, hence, the suit needs to be dismissed.