LEGAL HEIRS OF MONU DAS Vs. HASMAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. So far the respondents are concerned, services on them are complete. But none has entered appearance as apparent from the record. However, considering this appeal to be of the year 2004, the same is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The present appellant is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 45/2001 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Nagaon. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land, for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants/ respondents from the suit land. The case of the plaintiff/ appellant is that one Bakhar Keot was the original owner and possessor of the suit land measuring 3 B 1K 13L covered by Dag No. 827 of PP No. 152 of Khatowal Mouja and Ouana Kissam described fully in the schedule of the plaint. On his death, the land was inherited by his wife amongst others and she maintained her possession over the suit land. Partition took place amongst the family members of Bakhar and subsequently by way of a registered deed bearing No. 7393/1970 on 19.11.1970 (Exhibit-1) the wife of Bakhar sold the land to the plaintiff/ appellant at a consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. The name of the plaintiff/ appellant was mutated over the suit land and he maintained his possession over the same by digging a pond covering more or less B of land. The defendant/ respondent No. 1 was requested by the plaintiff/ appellant to look after the fishery who resided just adjacent to the suit land. The defendant/ respondent No. 1 agreed to the request of the plaintiff/ appellant and later on by taking permission from the plaintiff/ appellant, the defendant/ respondent No. 1 constructed a house on the bank of the pond. The said defendant/ respondent No. 1 extended his construction and allowed the other defendants/ respondents to reside therein. Having found the acts and deeds on the part of the defendant/ respondent No. 2 violative to the agreed proposal, the plaintiff/ appellant on 06.01.2001 asked the defendants/ respondents to vacate the suit land along with the houses. The defendants/ respondents denied the title of the plaintiff/ appellant over the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiff/ appellant was compelled to file this suit for the reliefs so prayed for.

(3.) The main defendants/ respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 contested the suit by filing their written statement. On the other hand, the other defendants/respondents No. 4 to 7 did not contest the same. It is the case of the defendants/ respondents that originally the suit land was covered under Dag No. 420 and PP No. 127 and they admitted the ownership of Bakhar Keot as its original pattadar and possessor. Later on, the periodic patta number was changed to 152 along with the Dag number which was changed to 827. On the death of Bakhar Keot, his only son Banamali Das sold the land vide registered deed No. 16/1949 to one Rustom alias Rusmat Kha, the grandfather of the defendants/ respondents No. 1 and 2. The said Rustam Kha dug a pond and constructed 4 houses over the suit land and started residing with his family thereon till his death. On the death of Rustom Ali, Sohrab Ali, the father of the defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2 owned and possessed the land by right of inheritance and on his death, the present defendants/ respondents No. 1 and 2 owned and possessed the land along with the houses and the pond by right of inheritance. The said defendants/ respondents No. 1 and 2 allowed the defendants/ respondents No. 3 and 4 to reside on a portion of the suit land as licensee. It is also stated in the written statement that the remaining defendants/ respondents are in no way connected with the suit land nor they possessed the same. They disputed the Exhibit-1, sale deed, by bringing the pleadings that the wife of Bakhar Keot died 40 years back and the fact that Exhibit-1 was executed by the wife of Bakhar is not at all believable. The said Exhibit-1 is a fraud one and the plaintiff/ appellant never possessed the suit land. In addition to that, the defendants/ respondents also took the plea of adverse possession, however, without any pleading with regard to the requisite ingredients to that effect.