PAWAN KR. AGARWAL Vs. ISHWAR PRASAD JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.P.Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The present respondent as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 14/1996 in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia for recovery of the possession of the suit land by evicting the defendant appellant and permanent injunction from carrying out further construction over the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff respondent that he is the absolute owner of the land described in the schedule of the plaint on the strength of a registered sale deed No. 508/1986 and the same was possessed by him till he was dispossessed from a part thereof by the defendant appellant. His name has been mutated in the land record and the land revenue is also paid. On 5.1994 while the plaintiff respondent visited the suit land he found that the defendant appellant through his labourers constructed a pucca wall on a part of the aforesaid suit land without any consent from the plaintiff respondent. In the said process of construction of the wall the defendant appellant occupied the western portion of the plaintiff's land and dispossessed him. Thereafter, on 6.1994 some building materials were stocked over the suit land with an intention to carryout construction over the suit land. Hence he filed a suit for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant and for permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant appellant in his written statement after denying the pleadings of the plaintiff respondent pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to one Prabhudayal Agarwal who died in the year 1979 leaving behind his wife Smti Gita Devi Agarwala and seven sons, three daughters as his only legal heirs who inherited the land he purchased. Later on one of the sons Murulidhar Agarwal also died leaving behind his wife Smti Geeta Devi Agarwala, two sons and four daughters as his legal heirs. The legal heirs of late Prabhudayal Agarwal and Murulidhar Agarwal were the joint owners and at the time of sale transaction vide registered sale deed No. 508/1986, wife of late Murulidhar Agarwal had no right to transfer the suit land to the plaintiff respondent in any manner. As such the said sale deed is void, inoperative and does not confer any title over the suit land and as such sought for dismissal of the suit.