Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. -
(1.) Deka, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. MH Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and Ms. K Phukan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 6.
(2.) The present respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff preferred Title Suit No. 7/2009 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Morigaon against the review petitioner as one of the defendants amongst others for the following reliefs:-
"(i) decree directing the principal defendant No. 1 to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 12,000/- only being the arrear rent for the suit premises accumulated with effect from 30.08.2007 to 31.08.2009 at the rate of Rs. 500/- only per month;
(ii) a decree to deliver the plaintiff khass possession of the suit premises as described in the schedule 'A' cited herein below by evicting the principal defendant No. 1 along with other members of her family therefore;
(iii) a decree declaring that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the schedule 'B' land and the plaintiff is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 28,500/- as compensation for the acquisitioned land and a sum of Rs. 1,74,290/- only for the standing pucca house, total Rs. 2,02,790/- only;
(iv) a decree directing the Addl. Deputy Commissioner cum Authority Officer, Morigaon to make payment of a sum of Rs. 28,500/- only as compensation for the acquisitioned land and a sum of Rs. 1,74,290/- only for the standing pucca house, total Rs. 2,02,790/- only;
(v) a permanent injunction restraining the Addl. Deputy Commissioner cum Authority Officer, Morigaon and Circle Officer of Mayang Revenue Circle to make payment the compensation of the acquisitioned land and pucca house to principal defendant No. 1 and permanent injunction restraining the principal defendant No. 1 and her heirs and successors, agents or attorney or any one claiming under her to enter into the suit premises after eviction;
(vi) a permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 to enter into schedule 'C' land till payment of the compensation of the acquisitioned land for 4 (four) lane of National Highway;
(vii) cost of the suit;
(viii) any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiff legally entitled to."
(3.) The present petitioner as the defendant No. 1 filed her written statement thereby denying the claim of the respondent No. 1 along with a counter claim with the following reliefs:-
"a) a decree be passed by decreeing the counter claim by declaring right, title and interest over the suit land and the house described in Schedule 'A' below and also be decreed in granting confirmation of possession of the counter claimant in the suit premises, and
b) a decree be passed by declaring that the counter claimant has right, title and interest over the land acquisitioned within 'A' Schedule land and counter claimant is entitled to get sum of Rs. 28,500/- as compensation for the acquisitioned land and sum of Rs. 174290/- for the standing pucca house a total amount of Rs. 202790/-, and
c) a decree be passed by directing the concerning authority to make the payment of compensation of Rs. 202790/- for the acquisitioned land and house to the counter claimant, and
d) a permanent injunction be decreed against the plaintiff/ opp. Party and other holder of the notices of land acquisitioned case No. MRQ 2/2004 (L.A. Case No. 31/06) and any other concerning person restraining them in disbursing the compensation amount and from receiving the compensation amount for the land and house acquisitioned in the suit patta, and
e) a decree be passed by declaring that the mutation done/ recorded in the body of the suit patta No. 47 dated 24-8-90, 10-5-91, 12-7-93, 12-12-94, 16-10-94, 30-10-98, 19-5-03, 9-10-07 are illegal void inoperative in law and without any basis and merit, forged and fraudulent and liable to be cancelled and thus does not create any right in favour of the plaintiff/ opp. party and opp. parties and not binding upon this counter claimant, and f) alternatively the counter claimant prays that during the continuance of the suit and the counter claim if any portion of the suit properties been dispossessed by the opp. parties then a decree for khas possession be granted in favour of the counter claimant by evicting and removing such person or persons by demolishing any construction if thereon from the suit land if constructed illegally with men and materials, and
g) a decree for precept be issued in favour of the counter claimant with a direction to the concerning authority to do the needful, and
h) cost of the counter claim also be decreed in favour of the counter claimant and against the plaintiff/ opp. parties, and
i) any other relief/ reliefs to which the counter claimant is entitled in law, equity and good conscience may also be kindly decreed." Thereafter the learned trial court framed the following issues:-
i. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?
ii. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
Iii. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
iv. Whether the defendant No. 1 is tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises?
v. Whether the defendant No. 1 is to pay Rs. 12,000/- being the rent of Rs. 500/- per month from 30.08.2007 to 31.08.2009 to the plaintiff and whether the defendant is liable to be evicted therefrom?
vi. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?
vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 28,500/- as compensation and Rs. 1,74,290/- for the pucca house on the suit land from the defendant No. 4?
viii. Whether the defendant is entitled to counter claim made in respect of the suit land?
ix. To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?;