MANINDRA KUMAR DEY Vs. MAHENDRA SUKLABAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows : The suit land is covered by three Dags and they are - Dag No.l - area - 2B.10 K, DagNo.2-area- lB.5K and DagNo.3- area 2B. OK. The plaintiff No. 1 is the father of plaintiff No.2. The Dag Nos 1 and 2 are claimed by the plaintiff No. 1 and Dag No.3 is claimed by plaintiff No.2. The suit land originally belonged to Mahendra Suklabaidya, the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 sold the entire land of Dag Nos.2 and 3 to Rashmoni Suklabaidya by sale deed dated 17.7.1970 i.e. Ext.3. Rashmani soldDagNos.1 and 2 to Jatindra Dey-proforma Defendant No.2 on 7.6.1972, i.e. Ext.2. Jatindra sold the land of Dag Nos.l and 2 to plaintiff No. 1 Manindra on 9.2.1978 i.e. Ext.l. Dag No.3 was not sold by Rashmani. But after his death, the son Nibaran Suklabaidya, the Proforma defendant No.3 sold the land of Dag No.3 to Kami-plaintiff No.2 when he was minor on 25.10.1983 i.e. Ext.4. So, the plaintiff No.l became owner of Dag Nos.l and 2 and plaintiff No.2 became owner of Dag No.3 and as such, the plaintiffs became the owner of all the 3 Dags.

(3.) The defendant No.l Mahendra Suklabaidya instituted a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.RC. in respect of Dag No.3 of the suit land and' in the said proceeding possession was declared in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the disputed land and thereby the title of the plaintiff was clouded. The plaintiff therefore, instituted the suit being Title Suit No. 17/86 in the court of the learned Asstt. District Judge at Karimganj for declaration of jote right of the plaintiff No. 1 over Dag Nos. 1 and 2 and the jote right of the plaintiff No.2 over Dag No.3 of the land. The defendant No.l only contested the suit by filing the written statement. His defence was that he is a refugee from East Pakistan and he possessed the land and later on it was allotted to him by the Govt. The defendant No.l mortgaged the suit land to the Nibaran with a condition to re-convey the same in favour of the: answering defendant within the time fixed. The defendant No. 1 paid the entire mortgage money to Nibaran and thereafter, he continued with the exclusive possession of the land. The deeds mentioned by the plaintiffs are all fake and fabricated. The plaintiff wanted to take possession of the land forcibly and thus, there was a proceeding u/s 145 of Cr.RC. and in that proceeding, possession was declared in favour of defendant No. 1.