Decided on April 18,1975

Heirs Of Narayan Chandra Das Appellant


BAHARUL ISLAM,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the principal defendants who lost in both the courts below. The plaintiff's suit was for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession of the land in suit.
(2.) THE facts material for the purpose of this appeal may be stated as follows: 1 Bigha 3 Kathas of land belonging to one Abdur Rezak, was let out to one Krista Bhuimali. Krista Bhuimali sold 10 kathas thereof to pro forma-defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and 2 + kathas to pro forma-defendant No. 5 who sold the area to pro forma-defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Thus pro forma defendants Nos. 3 and 4 became the owner of 12 + kathas of land. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 then sold this area of 12 + kathas to the plaintiff by two registered sale deeds (Exts. 1 and 2) on 28-6-1957 and delivered possession thereof. The principal defendants (the appellants) dispossessed the plaintiff from and constructed houses on, the suit land described in Schedule 'Ga' to the plaint. Hence the suit. The principal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement. They have denied the plaintiff's allegation. Their case is that they took settlement of the land from Abdur Rezak in 1956 but they purchased it in 1959 from him.
(3.) AFTER trial the learned Munsiff held that the plaintiff failed to prove title to the suit land and he dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Sub-Judge held that the plaintiff has proved Exts. 1 and 2, the deeds of purchase of the disputed land from defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who had become the rightful owner of the land after purchase. It was contended before him that the land was within the jurisdiction of Dhubri Sub-Registry and Exts. 1 and 2 having been registered at Kokrajhar, they were invalid documents and created no title in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Sub-Judge, therefore, remanded the matter to the Munsiff to decide whether Dhubri and Kokrajhar sub-registries had concurrent jurisdiction, as contended by the plaintiff. He directed the trial court to give opportunity to both the parties for adducing evidence. It was further directed that if the Court was satisfied on evidence that "both Dhubri and Kokrajhar Sub-Registry had concurrent jurisdiction", then the Court will hold that the plaintiff had right, and title over the suit land and decree the plaintiff's suit.;

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