RAMANI CHUTIA @ BORAH Vs. LEGAL HEIRS OF PADMA BORA AND ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-73
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 09,2018

Ramani Chutia @ Borah Appellant
VERSUS
Legal Heirs Of Padma Bora And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA,J. - (1.) Heard Ms.B.Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant plaintiff and also heard Mr.P.K.Roy, learned counsel appearing for the defendants respondents.
(2.) The present appellant as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 2/2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge(Jr.Div.) Biswanath Chariali against the present defendants respondents for recovery of possession of the suit land and for permanent injunction. The suit land is described in the Schedule of the plaint. In the plaint it is the contention of the plaintiff appellant that he was in occupation of the suit land alongwith other land as his share by way of mutual family settlement since 1982. He constructed a cow shed and thatched house over the land covered by Dag No. 365 and used to cultivate the remaining portion of the land . He has his residential house covered by dag No. 349. Akan Chutia, the father of the plaintiff appellant without his knowledge and consent sold the land measuring 2 kathas out of 4 kathas 14 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 365 and 3 kathas 3 lechas out of 5 bighas 3 kathas covered by dag No. 349 under periodic patta No. 1 to the defendant respondent No. 1 Padma Bora who has been substituted on his death by his legal heirs during the pendency of this second appeal. Challenging the said sale the plaintiff appellant earlier instituted Title Suit No. 18/1989 in the court of learned Munsiff, Biswanath Chariali against Akan Chutia(father), Padma Borah and others for declaration of his right title and interest over the suit land and for confirmation of possession alongwith declaration that the sale deed No. 619/1989 as null and void. The said suit was dismissed on 26.2.1997. Though the suit was dismissed, yet the possession remained with the plaintiff appellant as pleaded.
(3.) In pursuance of an application by the defendant respondent No.1, the Circle Officer, Gohpur directed the Lat Mandal to demarcate 2 kathas of land covered by Dag No. 365 and 3 kathas 3 lechas covered by Dag No. 349 of periodic patta No. 1 in boundary Case No. 1/2003-04. The Lat Mandal accordingly complied with the direction of the Circle Officer with respect to land measuring 2 kathas 10 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 349 in absence of the plaintiff appellant. An application u/s 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur to set aside the order of the Circle Officer. On the other hand after the process of demarcation the defendants respondents in the absence of plaintiff appellant forcibly occupied the land covered by dag No. 349 and also constructed C.I.Sheet house over the portion of the said land. Again on 10.1.2004 in the absence of the plaintiff appellant the defendants respondents further occupied 1 katha 11 lechas of land under dag No. 365 including the thatched house of the plaintiff appellant. For the said reason the suit was filed alongwith reliefs mentioned herein above.;


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