MANTU NAG Vs. EMPIRE PLANTATION I LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The judgment and decree dated 12th day of November, 1990 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sonitpur allowing; the appeal of the present respondent thus reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, namely Sadar Munsiff, Te2pur in original T. Suit No. 35/80 is the subject matter under challenge in this Second Appeal. As required by the provisions of law laid down under Order 41 Rule 31CPC this court highlight uY facts of the case in a very short compass and so the points for determination, the decision mereon; and the reasons for decision as hereunder:

(3.) A suit was initially instituted by the plaintiff the respondent herein before the learned trial Court for possession of the suit land and eviction of the defendant appellant herein by contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff respondent is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carrying on business of production and manufacture of Tea and he is the owner of Borjuli Tea Estate and the owner of the suit land and that the appellant respondent herein had forcibly trespassed into the suit land on 26th June, 1980 without any authority thus disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff In view of the above position, the plaintiff respondent filed the present original suit before the trial Court. That suit was contested by the defendant appellant herein by denying all the statement and allegations made by the plaintiff respondent, thus contending, inter alia, that he had derived rather accrued his right and title over the suit land by adverse possession since he possessed the suit land for a long time with the knowledge of the plaintiff respondent and the plaintiff respondent has no right, title and interest over the suit land.