RAJESH KR AGARWALLA Vs. ROHIMA BIBI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Title Appeal No. 1/2003, whereby, the learned appellate court allowing the appeal of the defendant dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 17/1997 for ejectment of the defendant and mandatory injunction against the defendant to dismantle the construction made over the suit land.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff purchased the land measuring 2 katha 5 lecha covered by Dag No. 343 (Old) 1195 (New) and periodic patta No. 62 (Old) 22 (New) along with a barrack type kacha house consisting of 16 rooms and an RCC roofed house, consisting of 4 rooms from the proforma defendant, Noor Jainab by a registered sale deed in the year 1983 and took possession thereof. The defendants No. 1 & 2 were the tenants under the proforma defendant since 1969 in respect of two rooms in the kacha barrack type house. After few months of occupancy of the tenanted premises, the defendants No. 1 & 2 failed to pay rent and upon demand by the proforma defendant, the defendants No. 1 & 2 agreed to vacate the said tenanted premises, but ultimately they did not vacate the premises. At the instigation of the defendants No. 1 & 2, other tenants of the suit property also refused to pay rent and as such, the proforma defendant proposed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, to which, the defendants No. 1 & 2 raised objection. Because of the objection raised by the defendants No. 1 & 2, Tinsukia Development Authority did not issue permission for transferring the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. However, without the permission of Tinsukia Development Authority, the proforma defendant executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Initially, the defendants No. 1 & 2 instituted T.S. No. 51/1983 seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the suit properties and also permanent injunction restraining the proforma defendant from selling the suit properties. After execution of the sale deed, the defendants No. 1 & 2 instituted another suit (T.S. 111/1983) for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the proforma defendant in favour of the plaintiff. After execution of the sale deed, proforma defendant was allowed to stay in four rooms of the kacha barrack type house. On 08.09.1983, taking advantage of absence of proforma defendant, the defendants No. 1 & 2 trespassed into the rooms, which were in occupation of the proforma defendant and started living there and the defendant No 3 was inducted in the room, which were in occupation of the defendants No. 1 & 2. Taking advantage of the injunction granted in T.S. No. 111/1983, instituted by the defendants No. 1 & 2, the RCC rooms were also occupied by the defendants No. 1 & 2 and rented out to defendants No. 6, 7 and 8. The defendants also did not allow the plaintiff and their persons to enter into the suit land and as such, the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of the defendants and also permanent injunction from dismantling the construction made by them over the suit land.