LEGAL HEIRS OF LT. FAIZUL HAQUE Vs. MUBOI SHEIKH (MD.)
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-81
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 09,2018

Legal Heirs Of Lt. Faizul Haque Appellant
VERSUS
Muboi Sheikh (Md.) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA,J - (1.) .Heard Mr.G.N.Sahewalla learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.B.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.P.Choudhury learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) The present appellants as the plaintiffs preferred Title Suit No. 22/2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Silchar against the present defendants respondents for declaration of right, title and interest, declaration that the defendants respondents are licensee under them and for recovery of khas possession over the suit land measuring 1 bigha 1 katha 9 chataks.
(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs appellants that Martin Anthony and Adam Anthony were the owners with respect to the land measuring 28 bighas 7 kathas 12 chataks under second R.S.Patta No. 72 under various Dag numbers. Dag No. 164 consisted of land measuring 1 bigha 1 katha 9 chataks of land and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants respondents one Kotoi Sheikh, was the licensee under the said owners who possesed the land by constructing thatched house. The brother of Kotoi Sheikh also resided with him and illegally manufactured a draft khatian for the said land which was subsequently cancelled. Botoi Sheikh the brother of said Kotoi Sheikh left the suit premises in the year of 1974 after cancellation of the khatian. On the death of Kotoi Sheikh, his heirs, the present defendants respondents maintained the possession over the suit land covered by dag No. 164 as licensee. Vide registered sale deed No. 1359 dated 10.11.1989(Ext.2), Adam Anthony sold land measuring 7 kathas 2 chataks to the plaintiffs appellants leaving plaintiff appellant No. 1 out of the total land covered by dag No. 164. After sale the defendants respondent took permission from the plaintiffs appellants for allowing them to possess the land with assurance that they would vacate the same as and when demanded by the plaintiffs appellants. Later on plaintiff appellant No.1 who is the father of the plaintiffs appellants No. 2 to 4 purchased the rest of the land of dag No. 164 vide registered sale deed No. 770 dated 17.5.1993(Ext. 3). The defendants respondents took the necessary permission from the plaintiff respondent No. 1 to continue the possession as a licensee with the condition that they would vacate the land whenever the same is demanded by the plaintiffs appellants. The defendants respondents failed to comply with the demand of the plaintiffs appellants to vacate the said suit land and thereafter the present suit was filed with the relief mentioned hereinabove.;


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