LAWS(GAU)-2019-2-178

MD. GAJIBAR RAHMAN Vs. SABJAN NESSA

Decided On February 28, 2019
Md. Gajibar Rahman Appellant
V/S
Sabjan Nessa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. U. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) In this second appeal judgment and decree dated 18.12.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 24/2013 by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta is under challenge.

(3.) The present appellant is the defendant in Title Suit No.36/2009 in the learned court of Munsiff No.1, Barpeta preferred by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for declaration that the registered sale deed No.1439/2008 dated 17.06.2008 under the Barpeta Sub-Registry is forged, invalid and inoperative in law and also for a declaration that the mutation dated 25.06.2008 in favour of the defendant is liable to be cancelled and for recovery of possession of the suit land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 11 Lechas under the Periodic Patta No. 58 covered by Dag No.249 of village- Khardhara under Mauza- Nagaon in the district of Barpeta. The said plot of land was inherited by the plaintiff/respondent from her father, late Acharuddin. The plaintiff/respondent alongwith her husband were the residents residing nearby the suit land. They shifted about 3 years back from the date of filing the suit. The suit land was given on "Adhi" to the defendant/appellant on the condition that on demand the defendant/appellant should vacate the suit land. A proposal was made by the defendant/appellant to purchase the suit land which was agreed to by the plaintiff/respondent at a total consideration of Rs.92,400/-. There was no advance consideration paid to the plaintiff/respondent but the defendant/respondent took her thumb impressions on a blank paper to obtain permission for sale of the suit land from the competent authority. Thereafter, there was no communication between the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant. The husband of the plaintiff/respondent just about 4 months prior to the filing of the suit went to the house of the defendant/appellant in order to enquire with the progress of the sale transaction and surprised to know that the defendant/appellant informed the husband of the plaintiff/respondent that he had already purchased the land and as such, there was no question of any sharing of crops. On an enquiry, thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent through her husband that a registered sale deed bearing No. 1439/2002 was purportedly shown executed by the plaintiff/respondent and after obtaining the certified copy on 16.10.2008 for the first time it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent. A specific pleading was made that the plaintiff/respondent did not execute nor visited the Office of the Sub-Registry, Barpeta in order to execute the sale deed and it was fraudulently shown to be executed by her forging the thumb impression purportedly by way of impersonation. On the basis of the said pleading the plaintiff/respondent sought for the reliefs mentioned hereinabove.