GANESH CHANDRA NATH Vs. ARNAB HAZARIKA AND ANR
LAWS(GAU)-2018-12-41
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on December 13,2018

Ganesh Chandra Nath Appellant
VERSUS
Arnab Hazarika And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. B. Deka, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D. Baruah, the learned Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) By this revision under Section 115 CPC, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014, passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in T.S. No. 126/2007, which was a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
(3.) The case as projected in the suit is that the previous suit, numbered as TS No. 126/2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. It was claimed that the petitioner was in possession of land measuring 1K-6L, covered by Dag No. 213, PP No. 33 of Village No.1, Mathgharia, Mouza- Beltola in the district of Kamrup (M), as morefully described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The said land was originally purchased by his father by Sale Deed No. 5778 dated 14.05.1975 by one Kartik Rai, the occupancy tenant under original owner, namely, Panna Devi Agarwalla, whose whereabouts is not known. The said land was left to him by his father, who had died in the year 1977. The said land formed a part of total land measuring 1B-2K-16L of same Dag and Patta, which was declared in his favour by order dated 29.10.2001 in Case No. 180m/1990 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which was filed after the Assam State Housing Board tried to dispossess the petitioner from the suit land on 01.04.1990. Thereafter, the said plot was divided into three portions and the suit land is one of these three plots. It was projected that on 24.10.2006, the respondents had made attempt to construct a brick wall, but because of the help from police the petitioner could not be dispossessed, but on 12.12.2006, the respondents had trespassed into the suit land by constructing 3 feet high brick wall in the eastern boundary of the suit land despite protest by the petitioners and on 19th and 20th February, 2007 the respondent had also installed a gate in the middle of the wall without any legal right or authority.;


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