HALIM SHEIKH Vs. MD. HAFIZUDDIN
LAWS(GAU)-2018-6-164
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 05,2018

Halim Sheikh Appellant
VERSUS
Md. Hafizuddin Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A Sharif, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) The present appellants are the defendants in Title Suit No. 1/2003 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property along with confirmation of possession and for cost as compensation. The facts as pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiffs/respondents are that they are the shopkeepers of Boribazar under Mouza Silpukhuri and the defendants/appellants are the members of the same village but they are not shopkeepers by profession. In the year 1980, the Morigaon Mahkuma Parishad gave settlement of the Veti No. 18 to the plaintiffs/respondents which was occupied by them by erecting a Ghumti shop. The defendants/appellants occupied Veti No. 19 and after few months of occupying they sold the same to Late Samiruddin Doctor and after his death his son Fakaruddin had been possessing the Veti No. 19. The defendants/appellants started claiming Veti No. 18 and on 05.11.2002 they erected six numbers of readymade pucca pillars on the Veti No. 18 with a view to dispossess the plaintiffs/respondents from the said Veti No. 18. After informing the police, the plaintiffs/respondents filed a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 which was registered as M.R. Case No. 150/2002 and vide order dated 11.11.2002, the said Veti No. 18 was attached. The defendants/appellants filed their written statement denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs/respondents over the suit Veti following which without waiting for the disposal of the 145 CrPC proceeding, the said suit was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned hereinabove.
(3.) The defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing written statement raising that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The case of the defendants/appellants is that the defendant/appellant No. 1 has been in continuous possession of the suit Veti since 1979 and paying land revenue. The said land is covered by Government Dag No. 645 of Silpukhuri Mouza under Mikirbheta circle. Over the suit Veti, the defendant/appellant No. 1 has been residing along with his family and further raised the plea that the plaintiffs/respondents have their shop to the western side of the suit Veti at a distance of 300 feet away from the shop of the defendant/appellant No. 1. The plaintiffs/respondents never occupied the suit Veti and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.;


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