SRI KULADHAR DEKA Vs. SRI BRIGHU NANDAM GOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AND ORDER - The present appellant is the defendant in Title Suit No. 448/06 filed by the plaintiff/respondent in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that he along with the brother Raj Nandan Gope are the owners of the suit land by way of inheritance same being the ancestral property. On the death of Raj Nandan Gope, his legal heirs, wife and son inherited his share in the suit land and possessed the same along with the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) The defendant/appellant threatened the profoma defendant i.e the legal heirs of Late Raj Nandan Gope, whereafter they left the Schedule A land. It is stated that the plaintiff/respondent along with the defendant/appellant were the business partners. The plaintiff/respondent eloped with the daughter of the defendant/appellant and taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant/appellant took away the title deeds. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant/appellant encroached the entire suit Schedule A and B plot of land and dispossessed the plaintiff/respondent along with the legal heirs of Raj Nandan Gope. Though the plaintiff/respondent had never transferred the suit land, however, the defendant/appellant got his name mutated in the Jamabondi of the suit land and hence this suit filed for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession.

(3.) Defendant/appellant filed his written statement taking the plea that he has been residing over the suit land on the strength of the purchase from the plaintiff/respondent and the legal heirs of Raj Nandan Gope. The said purchase was made by paying valuable consideration during the year 1997/98. Since the said purchase, the said defendant/appellant has been possessing the suit land, got his name mutated in the Jamabondi and as such the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is liable to be dismissed. Amongst the various issues framed by the learned Trial Court, issue Nos. 5 and 6 are relevant for discussion having a direct bearing in the present Second Appeal.