ADITY DAS Vs. MOLOKA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Thakur, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Khanikar, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) In the second appeal, Judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 is under challenge which was passed by the learned District Judge at Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 3/2007. The suit was filed by Late Paniram Das, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants. So, the appellant herein shall mean the original plaintiff. The present appellant as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 63/1995 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat for declaration of his right title and interest confirming his possession in respect of the land described in Schedule B of the plaint and that none other than the plaintiff is the lawful owner thereof and for declaration that the defendant/respondent is a defaulter in the eye of law and the plaintiff/appellant requires the tenanted room for his bona-fide requirement standing over the Schedule-C land and for eviction of the defendant/respondent. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that his father Khageswar Kaibarta and one Kamal Saikia jointly owned the land measuring 1 katha 9 lessas. After the death of Khageswar Kaibarta, the plaintiff/appellant inherited the land and his name was mutated in the Record of Rights. On the basis of an imperfect partition, the land measuring 14 lessas fell in the share of the plaintiff/appellant. The defendant/respondent approached the plaintiff/appellant for temporary accommodation which was allowed in respect of a room at a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- (Rupees thirty-five) on the condition that the defendant/respondent would vacate the room as and when asked for. On being demanded by the plaintiff/appellant, the defendant/respondent refused to vacate the room and later on collected building materials for construction and extension of the said room standing over the Schedule- C land. The defendant/respondent started construction over 6 lessas of land which is the suit land forming part of the 14 lessas of land described in Schedule- B. Accordingly, on the basis of the said cause of action, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated hereinabove.

(3.) The defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing the written statement wherein stand of the defendant/respondent is a specific denial of the plea that he is a tenant under the plaintiff/appellant. It is pleaded that originally one Bhogeswar Das was the owner of the said land and in the year 1941-42, the entire land was sold in a revenue sale case and Kamal Saikia purchased the entire land. The said Kamal Saikia sold the land to the predecessor-in-interests of both the plaintiff and defendant but the name of the father of the plaintiff/appellant was mutated only. In the year 1966-67, the entire suit land was again sold to one Upendra Nath Hazarika in a land sale case who subsequently sold 9 1/3 lessas of land to one Paniram Das, the plaintiff/appellant and his brother Deharam Das and 9 & 1/3 lessas of land to the defendant/respondent Moloka Das and his brother Manbahal Das. Since then, the defendant/respondent had been possessing the suit land as his own land.