Decided on August 20,1975

Madhab Chandra Barua And Others Appellant
Smt. Joymati Kalitani Barua Respondents


Baharul Islam, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is by the Defendants and is directed against a judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Darrang, Tezpur, in Title Appeal No. 34/70.
(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: An area of 32 Bighas 4 Kathas 8 Lechas of land as described in the Schedule to the plaint originally belonged to one Dehiram, Dehiram died leaving two sons Bangsi and Dhutiram. Bangsi died leaving his son Mukunda, Mukunda died leaving his widow Laheswari and minor daughter Joymati, Laheswari died in 1372 B.S. corresponding to 1965 -66 A.D. Dhutiram died leaving two sons. Madhab Defdt. No. 1 and Prafulla, Defdt. No. 2. The plaintiff's case is that the suit patta stood in the name of Dehiram. After is death, it stood in the name of Bangsi, and after his death, Mukunda and Dhutiram had equal shares. During his lifetime, Mukunda was living jointly with his uncle Dhutiram and possessed the land in Ejamali till the death of Dhutiram who died about 17 or 18 years ago before filing of the suit. Mukunda died about 8 years before the institution of the suit. After the death of Mukunda, Laheswari returned to her parents' home, but was getting half share of the crops grown on the land for the maintenance or herself and her minor daughter, the plaintiff, till her death. Before her death, the plaintiff had been given away in marriage, in 1368 B.S. Dhutiram died three years before filing of the suit leaving the two defendants. The plaintiff attained majority on 15th Bahag 1373 B.S. on attaining majority, she claimed half share of the property separately from the defendants, but they refused. The plaintiff has further alleged that her name had been mutated in respect of her share on 11 -6 -1969. She has filed the present suit for declaration of her title and recovery of khas possession.
(3.) THE two defendants have contested the suit. In their written statements, they have stated that Mukunda died about 20 years ago and one year after his death, Laheswari left her husband's place for good, relinquishing her claim to the share of her husband's properties in favour of Dhutiram and returned to live in her parents' home as early as 13 -6 -1939, and since then neither Laheswari, nor the plaintiff had any possession in the suit land. After returning to her parents' home, Laheswari filed a number of mutation cases in respect of her share in the suit land; but her prayers for mutation were rejected by the Sub -Deputy Collector concerned. As, thereafter, she did not file any Civil Suit, her claim is now barred by limitation and the defendants have acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.