ON DEATH OF BRAHMADEV PRASAD BIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS BACCHU PRASAD BIN Vs. NARENDRA NATH ROY
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
On Death Of Brahmadev Prasad Bin His Legal Heirs Bacchu Prasad Bin
NARENDRA NATH ROY
Click here to view full judgement.
Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P Chetia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. C Mozumdar, Ms. R Choudhury and Mr. S Nath, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The original appellant Brahmadev Prasad Bin was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 214/1991 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri who filed the suit against the main respondents No. 1 to 6 along with the proforma respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as the defendants for declaration of his right, title and interest as purchaser for valuable consideration without notice and possession over the schedule suit land, declaration to the effect that the compromise decree of Title Suit No. 417/1966 obtained on 12.06.1969 is not binding and enforceable against the plaintiff being the bona fide purchaser of the suit land, for permanent injunction and for correction of records of rights after cancelling the names of defendants/ respondents No. 1 to 4 etc. It is pertinent to mention here that the said sole plaintiff/ appellant died during the pendency of the present appeal and was substituted by his legal heirs. Similarly, the defendant/ respondent No. 4 also died and was substituted by his legal heirs during the pendency of this appeal and the name of the proforma respondent No. 3 was struck off during the pendency of this appeal. The plaintiff/ appellant pleaded that he purchased the suit land from proforma defendants/ respondents No. 1 and 2 and one Raj Kanta Roy, the father of the proforma defendant/ respondent No. 3. Rajkanta Roy was the recorded tenant of the suit land under the main defendants/ respondents No. 1 to 4 and he transferred his right, title and interest in part to the proforma defendant/ respondent No. 1 of the land measuring 2B 2K 10L by registered sale deed No. 4167/82 and land measuring 2B 2K 6½ L by registered sale deed No. 10225/82 and delivered possession thereof to the purchaser. Proforma defendant/ respondent No. 1 transferred out of her purchased land, 2K 10L to the plaintiff/ appellant by registered sale deed No. 692/89. The proforma defendant/ respondent No. 1 also transferred her remaining part measuring 2B to the proforma defendant/ respondent No. 2 which later on was sold to the plaintiff/ appellant in the year 1984 by the said proforma defendant/ respondent No. 2. Thus, the entire suit land remained under possession of the plaintiff/ appellant on the strength of his bona-fide purchase from the original pattadar and subsequent vendors. The suit land has all along been used for pisci- culture by digging model fishery and by paying revenue thereof. In March, 1991, the defendants/ respondents No. 1 to 4 tried to disturb and dispossess the plaintiff/ appellant from the suit land and in the first week of April, 1991 a proceeding under Section 107/144 of the Cr.P.C was initiated by the defendant/ respondent No. 1. From the said proceeding the plaintiff/ appellant came to know that the suit land was the subject matter of a compromise decree dated 12.06.1969 between the defendants/ respondents No. 1 to 4 and Rajkanta Roy, the father of the proforma defendant/ respondent No. 3 in Title Suit No. 417/1966. The defendants/ respondents No. 1 to 4 also obtained an ex parte order from the defendant/ respondent No. 6 (Settlement Officer, Dhubri) for correction of records in respect of the suit land on the strength of the said compromise decree. It is further alleged in the plaint that the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 417/1966 is collusive, fraudulent and illegal and not enforceable and legally binding the plaintiff/ appellant. As such, the plaintiff/ appellant instituted the suit for declaration of his right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit land as well as for the declaration against the compromise decree as stated hereinabove.
(3.) The defendants/ respondents No. 1 and 3 filed their written statement and the defendants/ respondents No. 6 filed a separate written statement. In the written statement, leaving aside the routine pleas like non-maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, it was pleaded that Rajkanta Roy had no right, title and interest and he was never a tenant under the defendants/ respondents in respect of the suit property and as such he had no right to sell the suit land. The name of Rajkanta Roy was wrongly recorded in the settlement operation in 1961-62 and knowing the fact of the said wrong entry, the defendants/ respondents No. 1 to 4 had instituted Title Suit No. 417/1966 against Rajkanta Roy for correction of records which was decreed on compromise in the year 1969. Thus, the sale deeds executed by Rajkanta Roy are illegal and not binding upon the defendants/ respondents No. 1 to 4. The plaintiff/ appellant got his name mutated by practising fraud which was later on rectified on the strength of the compromise decree. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.