CHAYA RANI DEY Vs. SUNIL KUMAR PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein as plaintiff instituted TS 3/1980 on 5-4-1980 in the Court of learned Asstt. District Judge at Karimganj, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Civil judge (Jr. Division) No. 1 (now, Munsiff No. 1)at Karimganj and re-numbered as TS 284/ 1993, praying for declaration of her occupancy right in respect of the land measuring 2 bighas, described in Schedule to the plaint, for confirmation of possession as well as for declaration that the sale deed dated 20-5-1977 executed by the predecessor in interest of the present proforma respondent nos, 5 to 8 is void, fake, fraudulent and inoperative and also for permanent injunction against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the suit ). The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 by filing a joint written statement. The plaintiff in the suit contended inter alia that she is in possession of the land by virtue of the purchase vide sale deed dated 18-5-1970 and the defendant No. 6 having no right, title and possession, sold the said suit land to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 by executing a sale deed on 20-5-1977 without her knowledge, about which she came to know on 19-3-1980 when the defendant Nds. 1, 2 and 3 informed her and requested to Hand over the possession of the suit land. It has further been contended in the plaint that the defendant No. 6 and the predeeessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and 7 to 10 created a collusive sale deed in respect of the suit land. The defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter alia that the husband of the plaintiff Kumud ranjan Dey (defendant No. 6) was the original owner of the suit land as the said land was purchased out of his own fund in the name of the plaintiff and, thereafter, he sold the land to the defendants by a registered deed of sale and put into possession. It has also been contended in the written statement that since then the defendants have been in possession of the suit land by growing crops and by constructing house thereon and the suit has been brought by the plaintiff in collusion with her husband (defendant No. 6) with the false averments.

(2.) THOUGH the plaintiff initially prayed for confirmation of possession in the plaint, on the prayer made by her, the prayer portion of the plaint was amended vide order dated 12-11-1992 whereby the plaintiff has sought for recovery of khas possession. The defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5, after the amendment, filed additional written statement contending inter alia that the suit is barred by limitation as they are possessing the suit land with the knowledge of the plaintiff and the public in general.

(3.) THE learned trial Court on the basis of the evidences on record, both oral and documentary vide judgment dated 18-3-2000. decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring her right, title and interest over the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) preferred title Appeal No. 21/2000 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at karimganj (now, Civil Judge), which was allowed by the learned first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19-4-2003 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and hence, the present appeal.