KHUSHED ALI Vs. ARBESH ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. The present appellant is one of the defendants in Title Suit No. 47/1997 filed by the plaintiff respondents. The plaintiff respondent No. 2 on his death was substituted by his legal heirs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff respondents in brief is that the second R.S. Patta No. 1 of Dolidahar Grant consists of 2039 Bighas 13 Kathas of land. One Khirod Ranjan Sinha purchased the same by way of auction sale whereafter amongst various persons, Akmol Ali, Abdul Karim, Akram Ali and Mosaid Ali purchased 339 B 18 K 12 CLs of land from the said Khirod Ranjan Sinha and the names were duly mutated in revenue records. The said Abdul Karim being the owner of 84 B 19 K 11 CLs 5 G of land, sold 14 B 3 K 4 CLs land to one Abdul Gaffar vide registered deed No. 165 dated 05.01.1980 and 12 B 6 K to Hazira Bibi vide registered sale deed No. 5229 dated 15.07.1985. Akmol Ali sold 1 B 16 K 6 CLs to the daughters and wife of Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Karim. By way of registered sale deed No. 3450 dated 27.11.1989, the said Abdul Gaffar, Hazira Bibi and Sufia Khatun sold 16 B 7 K 7 CLs 10 Gs of land to Bimal Khasia and handed over possession thereupon. The said Bimal Khasia in pursuance of an agreement for sale handed over possession out of his purchased land to the plaintiff respondents in the year 1990. The plaintiff respondent No. 2 constructed tin roofed shed over Ga schedule land to protect the agricultural produce. It is pertinent to mention here that the total land which Bimal Khasia promised to sell to the plaintiff respondent No. 2 has been described in schedule Ka to Gha in the plaint. Later on Bimal Khasia sold out the said land to the plaintiff respondents vide registered sale deed No. 116 dated 20.01.1997 and transfer his title. The defendant appellant manufactured certain forged documents concerning the suit land in order to take forcible possession of the suit land and make criminal trespass on 30.10.97 along with some other defendants. The plaintiff respondents resisted such action and during the scuffle, one of the sons of the plaintiff respondent No. 2 died and the said plaintiff respondent No. 2 along with other family members were injured. The plaintiff respondents lodged FIR at Algapur Police Station. The plaintiff respondents pleaded that the land described in schedule Ka, Kha and Ga of the plaint were transferred to one Ali Ahmed and another by way of registered sale deeds. So, the plaintiff respondent filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over schedule Gha land and for recovery of possession thereof and other reliefs.

(3.) Amongst various defendants, the present defendant No. 2/ appellant contested the suit by filing written statement. Leaving aside the routine pleas with respect to the maintainability of the suit, limitation etc., it is the case of the defendant appellant that one Tajmul Ali, Intaz Ali, Mantaz Ali and Kala Raja also purchased 339 B 18 K 2 CLs of land from Khirod Ranjan Sinha. It is submitted that Khirod Ranjan Sinha purchased the land in an auction sale and as the aforesaid purchasers were originally Mirajdars and possessors of the part of the suit patta land, so after the auction sale they retained their original land by way of purchase from the auction purchasers. The defendant appellant purchased 3 B of land from one Mobeswar Ali on 29.05.1992 and on 21.02.1992 he purchased another 6 B 3 CLs 6 G 2 Kr of land from one Harmohan Sinha and on 10.05.1993 further he purchased 2 B of land from Suraj Jan Bibi. The defendant appellant denied that the vendor of the plaintiffs sold the land in specific boundary as pleaded by the plaintiff respondent. It is specifically pleaded that Bimal Khasia never purchased any land with any specific boundary in the suit Dag and Bimal Khasia left the place in the year 1993 for ever and has not returned back. The sale deed dated 20.01.1997 on the basis of which the plaintiff respondents claimed the suit land is a manufactured one and on the strength of the said manufactured deed dispossessed the defendant appellant on 29.10.1997 and also assaulted the defendant respondent causing serious injuries. He also lodged and FIR against the plaintiff respondent. Denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiff respondent, the defendant appellant prayed for dismissal of the suit.