SUNIL KR SARKAR Vs. AGHOR KR BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 99 of 1978 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff (I), Dhubri in Title Suit No. 120 of 1975 decreeing the suit for ejectment or eviction of the defendant from the suit premises.

(2.) The plaintiff brought the suit stating that the defendant, on 8-12-1964, took lease of the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. But the defendant defaulted in payment of rents for the suit premises from the month of February 1967. The defendant has also sublet a portion of the suit premises.The plaintiff demanded rents and possession of the suit premises, but the defendant failed to pay rent and to vacate the suit premises. The defendant contested the suit. The case of the defendant was that he took a loan of Rs. 4,100/- from the plaintiff by mortgaging the suit premises. The defendant was allowed to possess the suit premises as before on his own right. But a deed of sale, dated 5-12-64, registered on 8-12-64 was obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant for Rs. 8,200/-. A deed of re-conveyance dated 7-12-64 (Ext.4) registered on 8-12-64 was executed by the plaintiff for the re-sale of the suit premises at Rs. 8,200/- stating that if the defendant pays the sum of Rs. 8,200/- on or before 7-12-75, the suit premises would be re-conveyed. There was also another agreement dated 7-12-65 (64) (Ext.-5) for re-payment of loan of Rs. 4,100/at a monthly instalment of Rs. 200/-. The further case of the defendant was that the sale deed (Ext.-3) was fraudulent and collusive; and the plaintiff had acquired no right, title and interest in the suit premises. The defendant has already paid the money and therefore is not entitled to be evicted.

(3.) The Courts below have held that the sale deed (Ext.-3) was out and out sale; and that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff on the basis of the lease deed (Ext.5); and that the defendant did not pay the sum mentioned in the deed of re-conveyance (Ext.-4).