NITYA SADHU JAMATIA AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDRA DAYAL JAMATIA AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Nitya Sadhu Jamatia And Others
Chandra Dayal Jamatia And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
R.S. Bindra, J.C. -
(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14 -9 -1964, by which the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tripura, Shri N. M. Paul, dismissed their suit for possession by partition of their share in the land covered by jote No. 75.
(2.) The suit was founded on the allegations that the lands described in Schedule 1 of the plaint had been acquired jointly by the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from the Government of Tripura as jotedars against the payment of certain amount. The acquired land was covered by jote No. 75 and its area was mentioned as approximately 5 drones though actually it turned out to be about 30 drones within the boundaries given in the relevant order of the Government. For sometime after the acquisition, it was alleged further, the plaintiffs, who are 10 in number, and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 continued in joint possession of the entire area but subsequently for the sake of convenient enjoyment they entered into different parcels of the land. The description of the area under the possession of the plaintiffs was given in Schedule 2 of the plaint while that in occupation of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was set out in Schedule 3 of the plaint. Sometime before the institution of the suit, it was pleaded, disputes cropped up between the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the latter initiated proceedings under Sec. 107, Criminal P. C. against the former in collusion with the other defendants. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2, it was alleged further, were out to dispossess the plaintiffs from the lands mentioned in Schedule 2 of the plaint, and so it was considered inevitable that the entire area jointly owned should be partitioned and the plaintiffs made secure in possession of the land which falls to their share. The plaintiffs claimed 10/12th share in the joint land covered by jote No. 75 and alleged that the remaining 2/l2th share belongs to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The total number of the defendants in the suit was 63. Different sets of the defendants filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, if was admitted that to begin with the land under jote No. 75 had been jointly acquired by them and the plaintiffs, but it was alleged that partition by metes and bounds had been effected between the joint owners more than 10 years before the institution of the suit. On that basis it was claimed that the suit for possession by partition was not maintainable. Another objection taken was that the plaintiffs had sold their share of the land to a large number of persons and since quite a few of them had not been imploded, the suit for partition was not properly constituted.
(3.) The trial Court settled the following issues between the parties:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got any cause of action in this suit?
(2) Is the suit bad for defect of parties?
(3) Is the suit properly valued and stamped?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have got any right, title or possession in the suit lands?
(5) Are the suit lands liable to be partitioned between the parties? If so, what would be the share of the plaintiffs in those lands?
(6) What relief, are the plaintiffs entitled to get?
Issues Nos. (1) and (2) were decided against the plaintiffs and issue No.(3) in their favour. Issues Nos. (4) and (5) were decided against the plaintiffs but for reasons, which are not comprehensible. In consequence of the findings on issues Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.