HARABALLAV SARMA Vs. MOHODAR SHARMA
LAWS(GAU)-1975-6-4
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 20,1975

Haraballav Sarma Appellant
VERSUS
Mohodar Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BAHARUL ISLAM, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 132 of 1970.
(2.) THE material facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: Defendant No. 6, Satyanath Sarma, took settlement of 3 kathas 16 Lechas of land covered by dag No. 66 of K. P. Patta No. 276, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, on payment of cash rent of Rupees 16/- per annum and was in possession of the land. During his illness during the last re-settlement operation the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the land. The plaintiff then served notice on the defendants demanding vacant possession of the land. Defendant No. 6 complied but defendants Nos. 1 to 5 did not. Hence he filed the present suit for recovery of possession. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have filed a joint written statement while defendant No. 6 has filed a separate written statement, they have denied that defendant No. 6 was ever a tenant under the plaintiff and that he had vacated the land on demand by the plaintiff as alleged by him. They have also denied that defendants 1 to 5 trespassed on the suit land as alleged by the plaintiff. They have further pleaded that defendants 1 to 5 acquired title to the land by adverse possession.
(3.) THE trial court held that defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have acquired title by adverse possession on the suit land and dismissed the suit. On appeal the first appellate court rejected, as false, the plaintiff's case that defendant No. 6 was a tenant and that he vacated it about 4 or 6 years ago and that defendants 1 to 5 trespassed into the land during the last re-settlement operation. He has concurrently found that defendants 1 to 5 were in possession of the land for more than 12 years. He, however, found that the "plaintiff lost his father at the age of 1 + years and, therefore, he grew up in the house of his maternal uncle. During that period the defendants came to occupy the land. But their possession was entirely of a permissive nature.";


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