LEGAL HEIRS SMT. RENUSHREE LAHKAR Vs. PRADIP KUMAR LAHKAR
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Legal Heirs Smt. Renushree Lahkar
PRADIP KUMAR LAHKAR
Click here to view full judgement.
ALFAZ ALI,J. -
(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.06 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup in TA No.1/2005, whereby the learned Civil Judge concurring with the finding of the learned Munsiff, dismissed the appeal as well as the suit filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) The appellant, herein, as plaintiff filed T.S. No. 14/2003 praying for declaration of right, title and other consequential reliefs. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and defendants were brothers and sons of late Keshav Chandra Lahkar, who died on 14.12.1979. Before his death, Keshav Chandra Lahkar distributed all his properties among his legal heirs, except the property involved in the present suit, being a dwelling house known as "Kirti Bhawan" alongwith land measuring 1 B 1K 5 Lechas covered by Dag No. 1724, 1725, 1434, 1435 and 1436 of NK Patta No. 8 and 5, situated in Rangia town, which remained joint property. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were in possession of the suit property. Disputes and differences having arisen between the defendant No. 2 and plaintiff, the suit property was amicably partitioned, in presence of their relatives and as per said amicable arrangement, the eastern part of the suit property was given to the defendant No. 2 and western part was given to plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 got a land at Guwahati city through a gift deed executed by their father in favour of the son of the defendant No. 1, and as such, in order to maintain parity, it was decided amicably that the defendant No.1 would not get any share in the suit property, 'Kirti Bhawan'. Later on, the said family arrangement was reduced to writing and the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had been enjoying the suit property. On 13.6.2003, suddenly the plaintiff received a notice, whereby the defendant No. 1 for the first time disclosed, that there was a registered partition deed, being deed No. 208 of 1994 executed on 19.2.94, whereby the defendants claimed, that the suit property (Kirti Bhawan) was partitioned amongst the three brothers being the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff denied to have signed the alleged partition deed dated 19.2.94, and stated that it was prepared fraudulently by forging his signature. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants were contemplating to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property on the basis of the forged deed of partition dated 19.2.94 and the defendant No. 2 already started construction of RCC building touching the boundary of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff brought the suit for declaration that defendant No. 1 had no right, title, interest and possession over the property (Kirti Bhawan), that the registered partition deed of 19.2.1994 was forged or fradulent and not binding on the plaintiff, for cancellation of the said deed as well as permanent injunction.
(3.) The pleaded case of the defendants was that the suit was barred by limitation. The suit property (Kirti Bhavan) having been partitioned amongst the plaintiff and the defendants in the year 1994, there was no question of further partition in the year 2003 and the alleged family arrangement of 2003 was the brain child of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit with the ulterior motive to grab the suit property (Kirti Bhavan) and prepared the so-called family arrangement by misleading the defendant No. 2. The defendants also denied the allegation of fraud in respect of the partition deed of 1994.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.