MADHAB CH. DAS Vs. SABITRI RANI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.L. Mandal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The appellant is the defendant in Title Suit No.201/1994 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction. The fact of the case of the plaintiff/respondent are that they purchased the land measuring 2Ks 12 Dhurs equivalent to 13L's from one Smt. Biraja Basini Debi and others by registered sale deed No.2135/1939 and the land is described in the Schedule-A to the plaint. Smt. Shyamala Das, the mother of the respondent plaintiff No.2 purchased land measuring 3 L's fully described in Schedule-B of the plaint from Smt. Jayati Kana Choudhurani and others by Registered Deed No. 2259 dated 21.01963 where after the possession was delivered accordingly. The Schedule-B land is possessed by Smt. Shyamala Das through her sons namely, plaintiff/respondent No.2 and Sri Tarapada Das. The plaintiff/respondents are possessing the Schedule-A and B land by constructing residential house with boundary walls. The defendant/appellant purchased the land described in schedule-C to the plaint which is situated on the eastern side of the Schedule-A land and on the northern side of the Schedule-B land. The defendant/appellant started construction of RCC building on his land encroaching upon the land and boundary walls of the plaintiff/respondents violating the standing provisions of Municipal Act and Rules. Though the plaintiff/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Town and Country Planning Officer, Dhubri but no action was initiated. The plaintiff/respondents pleaded that the defendant/appellant has no right to erect any structure encroaching the land of the plaintiff/respondents in clear violation of the provisions of the Municipal Act and Rules. It is also further pleaded that the defendant/appellant started the construction of the RCC building without any proper building permission from the Municipal authority. As such the plaintiff/respondents had prayed for reliefs as follows:

(3.) Initially, the suit was filed against the present appellant/defendant only. Later the Municipal Board, Dhubri represented by its Executive Officer was impleaded as defendant No.2.