Decided on September 17,2018

On Death Of Kalyan Kanti Purkayastha His Legal Heirs Bhabani Purkayastha Wife And Ors Appellant
Kusum Kanti Purkayastha And Ors Respondents


Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - (1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30-09-2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 31/2001, whereby the learned Civil Judge allowing the appeal filed by the defendant dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
(2.) The facts leading to the second appeal may briefly be stated thus : The plaintiff purchased 1K 5L of land under Dag No. 612 of Periodic Patta No. 14, from the defendant No. 1 by registered sale deed dated 18-5-1967 and obtained possession. Thereafter, the plaintiff also purchased 1K 5Ls of land from Tarak Brahma Bhattacharyya on 30-12-1968 and took possession. The land purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1967 and 1968 respectively constituted one compact plot of 2K 10Ls and the name of the plaintiff was also mutated in respect of the said lands. The plaintiff had been possessing the said land measuring 2k 10 ls by constructing residential house on the portion of the land purchased from Tarak Brahma Bhattacharyya. Plaintiff was an old person and he was taken to his son's house at Tura in the year 1987. Taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff, the defendants occupied the suit land measuring 1K 5Ls, which was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1. As the defendant no. 1 illegally trespassed into the suit land, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession.
(3.) The pleaded case of the defendant No. 1 was that he entrusted the plaintiff to purchase the plot of land measuring 2Ks 10 Ls, which was arranged with the help of Tarak Brahma Bhattacharyya. Though the entire money was paid by the defendant No. 1, the sale deed was executed in the name of defendant No. 1 and said Tarak Brahma Bhattacharyya. The defendant No. 1 had been possessing the suit land by constructing house and Tarak Brahma Bhattacharyya was also residing on a part of the land. Subsequently, the defendant no. 1 dispossessed Tarak Brahma Bhattacharyya from the suit land in the year 1984. In the month of May, 1967, the defendant No. 1 sold 1k 5l of land out of 2k 10ls, to the plaintiff and since then both the plaintiff and defendants were living separately on their respective land. The defendants, however, denied the sale deed executed by Tarak Brahma Bhattacharyya and pleaded that the sale deed allegedly executed by Tarak Brahma Bhattacharyya was forged and the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues :- 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit ? 2. Whether the suit is properly valued ? 3. Whether the suit suffers from mis joinder of and nonjoinder of necessary parties ? 4. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for khas possession by demolishing the structure from the suit land ? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief ?;

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