HEM KANTA SAIKIA Vs. PRABHATI BALA DEKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup, whereby the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3-9-1983 passed by the learned Trial Court, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the plaintiff respondent with two others had filed the suit for declaration of their right and title to ⅓rd share of lands described in Schedule-A and the entire lands in Schedule-B of the plaint, for Khas possession, division of the lands in Schedule-A by metes and bounds, if necessary and injunction, on the allegations that the land in Schedule-A originally belonged to one Puspa Ram Saikia who had three sons - Krishna Kanta Saikai, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, Hem Kanta Saikia, the defendant no.1 (the present appellant) and Andhu Ram Saikia, the defendant no.2 Krishna Kanta who died on 26-11-73 had inherited ⅓rd share in the aforesaid property and had also acquired the property in Schedule-B and was its absolute owner, that on the death of Krishna Kanta, the plaintiff no.l, the present respondent the daughter of a predeceased daughter of Krishna Kanta, plaintiff no. 3 and the plaintiff no. 2 Praneswari Saikia, the two widows of Krishna Kanta had inherited that property in suit, i.e. ⅓rd share of Krishna Kahta as in Schedule-A and the entire property in Schedule-B, that the defendants had denied the right and title of the plaintiff no.1, that the defendants taking advantage of the old age and illiteracy of the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 had obtained mutation of their names against the property, that it was learnt that the names of the defendants nos. 3 to 7 who were the sons of the defendant no. 1 and also been recorded against the property on the basis of a relinquishment, that there had been a separation in the time of Krishna Kanta himself but in case the defendants denied the same the property be divided.

(3.) The defendant no. 1 and 2 filed a joint-written statement and contested the suit. The defence was that the property in Schedule-B was not self-acquired property of Krishna Kanta, that there was no separation between the sons on Puspa Ram Saikia, and that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had been in possession of the entire land, the plaintiff no. 1 had no right and title to the property, that the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3, the widows of Krishna Kanta had relinquished their rights in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and had also transferred their interest to the defendant nos. 3 to 7. The defendant nos. 3 to 7 who were the minor sons of the defendant no.1 had also filed joint written statement claiming right over the property on the basis of transfer by the plaintiff no. 2 and 3.