KRISHNA KR ROY Vs. SATAYJIT SUKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendants. The plaintiff brought a suit being Title Suit No. 75/1975 in the Court of Assistant District Judge at Silchar. The suit was instituted on 7.7.75 and it was subsequently transferred to the Court of the MunsiffNo. 2 at Silchar where the preliminary jurisdiction of the Court was established and it was numbered as Title Suit No. 264/1981. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff on 30.5.1988. There was an appeal being Title Appeal No. 39/1988 and that appeal was allowed by the learned Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar. Hence this Second Appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr N.M. Lahiri, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr N. Choudhury, learned advocate and also heard Mr B.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent assisted by Mr C.K.S. Baruah and Smti T. Goswami.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The story behind the suit is that the suit land described in schedule 2 of the plaint appertaining to dag No. 3529 ofpattaNo. 379 of Silchar town which is described in schedule 1 of the plaint. The land in schedule 1 of the plaint belonged to defendant No. 6 i.e. Sri Narsing Bigraha from whom late Lasman Prasad took settlement in the year 1907 by a registered Kabulivat. Lasman Prasad Sukul was the resident of Kanauj in Uttar Pradesh and was governed by the Benaras School of Mitakshara Law of Hindu Succession. Lasman Prasad Sukul died leaving his son Ram Datta Sukul. Said Ram Datta Sukul also died leaving two minor sons namely, Surendra Narayan Sukul and another son and his wife Jhumkon Debi. Jhumkon Debi appointed one Bholanath Sukul as guardian of her two minor sons. Her minor son Radha Raman died bachelor and thereafter Surendra Narayan Sukul on attaining majority removed Bholanath Sukul from guardianship by a suit. Sukul family had a sweet-meat shop which was subsequently wounded up due to extravagant style of Surendra Narayan Sukul. The sons and grand sons who are plaintiffs in the suit also acquired the right in the ancestral property left behind by Lasman Prasad Sukul. On 1.2.1962 Surendra Narayan Sukul sold the 2nd schedule land to defendant No. 1 without the knowledge of the plaiintiffs who are coparceners and enjoyed the same right as Surendra Narayan Sukul enjoyed. Surendra Narayan Sukul had no legal neccessity to transfer the property but illegally transferred the 2nd schedule land to defendant No. 1. On 7.7.1972 the suit property was gutted and then the plaintiffs went to put fencing over the same when defendant No. 1 raised objection and then it was divulged for the first time that he had purchased the suit property from Surendra Narayan Sukul. Thus, the plaintiffs came with the suit on 7.7.1975 for declaration of their jote right over the suit property and also for confirmation of possession as well as for recovery of khas possession if it was found that the plaintiffs have been.dispossessed.