ISTAQUE ALI Vs. NAUSAD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This long pending First Appeal of 2011 is preferred under Section 96 of the C.P. Code against the judgment and order, dated 29.08.2009, passed in Title Suit No. 01/2004 by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Goalpara.

(2.) The defendant/appellants' case, precisely, is that the plaintiff/respondent instituted T.S. No. 01/2004, on 20.01.2004 for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over a plot of land, measuring about 2 bighas, 3 kathas and 9 lechas (hereinafter referred as 'suit land').

(3.) Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff/respondent are that Late Akram Ali, the father of both the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellants was the absolute owner of the suit land. During his lifetime, said Akram Ali had gifted the suit land to the plaintiff/respondent, vide registered Deed of Gift, being No. 2368, dated 31.05.1977. After execution of the said Deed of Gift, the plaintiff/respondent accepted the gift and took actual physical possession of the suit land and installed his Saw Mill thereon, under the name and style of 'Ali Saw Mill' in the year 1978. He also constructed a house over the suit land for the purpose of his said Saw Mill business. In 1981, the plaintiff/respondent constructed one Assam Type double storied building on the suit land, the ground floor of which was used by the plaintiff/respondent as his office and the top floor was used as rest house for the persons who used to visit the Mill for the purpose of business. In 1985, the defendant No. 1 Istaque Ali approached the plaintiff/respondent to allow him to reside on the top floor of the said house, as he had left his paternal house due to family dispute. Accordingly, he was permitted to reside on the top floor of the said house on condition that he would vacate the same, soon after completion of construction of his own house. In 2000, the defendant/appellant No. 1 constructed his own RCC house and shifted to his said house with his family and since then the said house remained in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff/respondent.