SUNITA RANI NATH Vs. PABITRA KUMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the legality, validity and justifiability of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division (No. 2), Silchar in Title Appeal No. 9/1991 dated 12-8-1999 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant and also divest the appellant out of the right, title and interest whatever was declared in her favour by the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 12-3-1991 passed in Title Suit No. 19/1986, the plaintiff/appellant has filed this second appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B. C. Das, the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. M. Bhuya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The pleaded case of the plaintiff in brief is that one Giridhar Paul was the original owner of the suit land, which was purchased by the defendant No. 1 and his other two brothers and became the owner thereof. Later on the defendant No. 1 on 7-4-1970 having purchased the share of the other co-owners became absolute owner of the entire land measuring 1 Bigha, 19 Katha, 1 Ch. covered by 2nd R. S. Patta No. 168, Dag No. 548/547/546/407 and 409/744 and Dag No. 745 of 2nd R. S. Patta No. 204. The defendant No. 1 sold the land so purchased by him to the plaintiff on 13-4-1983, and this is the suit land in the case. It is further pleaded that out of the aforesaid purchased land in some area the plaintiff was a tenant and the defendant No. 1 having expressed his intention to acquire title over the suit land a registered agreement to that affect was executed on 17-5-1982. It is further pleaded that before execution of the sale deed in terms of the agreement it was known that the land in Dag No. 407/408 in 2nd R.S. Patta No. 168 does not confirm the actual area agreed to be conveyed upon the plaintiff as per the aforesaid agreement. Accordingly, by executing the sale deed on 13-4-1983 the defendant No. 1 sold the scheduled land in favour of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that after purchase of the said land the plaintiff having applied for mutation of her name in the revenue record the defendants raised objection and the mutation order could not be passed, and that in the month of June 1983, the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 illegally trespassed into the land described in schedule 3 and disturbed the possession of the plaintiff to that extent and accordingly, a cloud over the title of the plaintiff having been cast, for removal of the same and for recovery of the possession of the suit land described in the schedule, the present suit was filed praying for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over scheduled 1 land, for recovery of possession from the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of schedule 3 land and for confirmation of position over schedule 2 land.