SITARAM NUNIA Vs. PRABHA BALA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being unsuccessful in Title Appeal No. 3/99 by which the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, affirmed and upheld the Judgment and Decree passed in Title Suit No. 43/94 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagaon, decreeing the suit, the defendant/appellant has filed this second appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P. K. Khataniar and Mrs. K. Devi, learned counsels on behalf of the defendant/appellant and Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents.

(3.) The plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit being Title suit No.43/94 in the court of learned Munsiff, Nagaon, praying for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and also for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs, inter alia, is that the suit land covered by K.P. Patta No. 228, Dag No. 426 described in the Schedule of the plaint, was owned and possessed by the defendant No. 1 and proforma defendant No. 2, which was originally acquired by their father. After the death of their father, the defendants mutually partitioned the land and possessed their respective share measuring 3 bighas each separately and the suit land in question falls within the share of defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 vide registered Sale Deed No. 256/1989 sold from his share an area of land measuring 2 kathas, 10 lechas in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. Similarly vide Sale Deed No. 895/1989, another area of 2 kathas, 10 lechas was sold to plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Further, an area of land measuring 1 Bigha was sold in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 vide sale deed No. 1919/90 and delivered possession of the respective purchasers. Since then, the plaintiffs are in actual and physical possession over their respective shares. After purchase of the land, the names of the plaintiffs were also mutated in the revenue record. While the plaintiffs were enjoying and possessing their respective shares in the manner aforesaid, on 30.6.99 the defendant No. 1 asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit land else they were threatened to be evicted by force. On query, the defendant disclosed that the names of the plaintiffs have been struck off from the revenue record. Enquiring the matter, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant No.1 by filing an application making misleading and incorrect statement that the defendant No. 2 is not the brother of the defendant No. 1 got corrected the revenue record striking out the names of the plaintiffs from the revenue record vide order dated 22.7.94. It is pleaded that the said order dated 22.7.94 is illegal and without jurisdiction and by such an order the right of the plaintiffs cannot be extinguished. Due to the aforesaid act of the defendants, the plaintiffs compelled to file a suit praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and for permanent injunction against the defendants.