LAWS(GAU)-2008-9-36

SADEK HUSSAIN Vs. HIMANI BEGUM

Decided On September 03, 2008
Sadek Hussain Appellant
V/S
Himani Begum Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09. 10. 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 14/2006 dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant and affirming the judgment and decree dated 19. 01. 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, (now Munsiff No. 1), Dhubri in decreeing the Title Suit No. 125/2000.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 125/2000 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri for declaration of right, title and interest and also for recovery of khas possession as well as for a direction for correction of revenue records and also for permanent injunction in respect of the plot of land measuring 1 Katha 13 Lechas covered by Dag No. 89, Khatian No. 55 of village Hatsingimari under Mankachar Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri contending, inter alia, that the suit land was gifted by the present appellant (defendant in the title suit) in favour of the plaintiff (wife of the defendant) by executing a registered deed of gift No. 583/96 on 25. 05. 1996 and the possession of which was also delivered to the plaintiff on the same date. But on 30. 04. 1998, the defendant without any cause drove the plaintiff and her minor daughter out from the house over the suit land at the instigation of his other wife and accordingly she was dispossessed from the suit land. The plaintiff therefore filed the said suit with the aforesaid reliefs claimed. The appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement mainly contending that the registered gift deed executed on 25. 05. 1996 is not valid as the possession of the gifted property was not handed over to the plaintiff and also contending that the said gift deed was revoked by executing a registered deed of revocation No. 250/2000. According to the appellant/defendant, the decree as prayed for, therefore, cannot be granted.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the appellant/defendant preferred Title Appeal No. 14/2006 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri, which was also dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 09. 10. 2007 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court concurring with the findings recorded therein, hence the present appeal.