PRAFULLA LAHKAR Vs. BIPUL CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted title suit No. 48/1991 against the defendant/ appellants praying for a decree of khas possession by evicting the defendant including the persons who are occupying the house under him (defendant/ appellant) and also by removing the thatched structures and Chalis and also for declaration of title. The case of the plaintiff/ respondents is that they are the owner and in possession of 2K 10L of land covered by Dag No. 482/483 of KP Patta No. 63 which is described in the Schedule A of the plaint. The said land was purchased by the deceased plaintiff Priyambada Baruah from one Kaliprasad Baruah and other co-owners by registered sale deed dated 27.02.1970 where-after possession was delivered to her. Her name was duly mutated vide order dated 06.01.1988 in Mutation Case No. 1160/1986-87. Immediately after taking possession, the deceased plaintiff (the present respondents are her legal heirs) constructed a thatched house and allowed some labourers to stay there. But the suit land was lying vacant as those labourers left the place.

(3.) During the last part of the year 1983 the defendant appellant started business of bamboo and tarja on the road side of the land of the PWD road abutted on the front side of the suit land by making a thatched chali. In the year 1984, the defendant appellant occupied the thatched house of the plaintiff respondents and used the same for his business purpose. The defendant appellant also raised two other challis on the suit land and allowed to stay one dhobi and a cycle mechanic. The plaintiff respondents protested to such action of trespass whereupon the defendant appellant promised to vacate the suit land as soon as he could arrange other accommodation. The defendant appellant also told that as the authority concerned evicted them from the road side chali, so he had shifted his business to the thatched house and he had raised the chali for the dhobi and cycle mechanic as they too had no shelter. The defendant appellant also allowed three other outsiders to raise chali over the suit land. But the defendant appellant did not vacate the suit land as promised.