SUDHARANI DEY Vs. BAPILAL DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.6.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge(Sr Divn) at Nagaon in Title Appeal No.8/1999, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge(Jr Division)(now, Munsiff) at Sankardev Nagar in Title Suit No.30/93 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants there from.

(2.) Plaintiffs instituted TS No.38 of 1992 initially in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge(now, Civil Judge), Nagaon which was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr Division)(now, Munsiff) and renumbered as TS No.30 of 1993, for declaration of right, title and interest over a plot of land measuring 4L, out of total land measuring 13L in Dag No.490 of Periodic Patta No.267 in No.2 Kisamati, Hojai Town, Mouza Hojai, and for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants there from contending inter alia that their predecessor in interest Late Sudhir Ch Dey was the absolute owner and possessor of the entire 13L of land comprised in the said Dag, out of which over a plot of land measuring 4L there was a house which was let out to defendant No.1 at monthly rent of Rs.200/- as per English calendar month, during the continuance of such tenancy, Sudhir Ch Dey died leaving behind the plaintiffs as their legal heirs and though the defendant No.1 paid rent up to January, 1999, he stopped payment of such rent thereafter and handed over the possession of the suit house to defendant Nos.3 and 4 in violation of the terms of the tenancy. It has further been contended in the plaint that the plaintiffs thereafter served quit notice on defendant Nos.1,3 and 4, on receipt of which the defendant Nos.3 and 4 denied the title and claimed that they are tenants under the defendant No.2 and further claimed that proforma defendant No.5 purchased the suit land and houses from Sudhir Ch Dey, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, and defendant No.2 thereafter purchased from proforma defendant No.5 and got their names mutated. Plaintiffs therefore prayed for declaration of right, title and interest and for delivery of khas possession.

(3.) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed their joint written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and contending inter alia that on 16.12.74 the proforma defendant No.5 purchased the land and the house standing thereon by a registered deed of sale from Sudhir Ch Dey, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, who in turn sold the said land to defendant No.2 by a registered deed of sale dated 3.12.75 for valuable consideration and delivered khas possession, on the basis of which the name of defendant No.2 has been mutated. The further case of the defendants in the written statement is that the defendant No.2 thereafter let out the suit house to defendant Nos.3 and 4.