H N BHORALI Vs. LILY MARBANIANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11. 7. 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner in TCA No. 3 (T) 2005, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the Judgment and Order dated 23. 6. 2003 passed by the trial Court in Title Suit No. 2 (T) 1993 refusing to decree the suit filed by him for declaration and mandatory injunction and cancellation of the sale deed executed between the respondent and the defendants.

(2.) THE material facts of the case leading to the filing of this Revision petition are that one landed property measuring about 0. 210 acres covered by Plot No. 75 and Patta No. 62 situated at Lachumiere, Shillong, was granted by the Deputy Commissioner to late Dr. P. D. Hazarika. The said Dr. P. D. Hazarika, after the grant, constructed a residential building which was duly registered as holding No. 174 and lived there with his wife Smti Punnya Prabha Hazarikanee Bhorali. The petitioner, who is the son of the brother of Smti Punnya Prabha Hazarikanee Bhorali, claimed that he is the adopted son of the couple since 1954. According to the petitioner, the said Dr. P. D. Hazarika during his life time had made a Will bequeathing the suit property to his wife, Smti. Punnya Prabha Hazarikanee Bhorali. It is the further case of the petitioner that late Dr. Hazarika and his wife gifted the suit property to him but before any appropriate deed could be drawn up, both of them died within two years of each other i. e. on 7. 9. 71 and 20. 11. 73 respectively. The petitioner claimed that he has been staying in the suit property with his family since 1969 till date. The petitioner further pleaded that on 23. 9. 92, he was surprised to receive a bill for electric consumption from the Meghalaya Electricity Board showing the name of the respondent as the consumer in respect of the suit property. The petitioner immediately made an enquiry and came to learn that the suit property had been sold to the respondent by the defendants No. 2, 3 4 and 5 whereupon he instituted the suit challenging the claim of the defendant No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 over the suit property and also questioning the validity of the sale deed executed by the said defendants in favour of the respondent.

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :