- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order, dated 07-05-2001. passed in Title Suit No. 54/2005, whereby learned Civil Judge No. II, Kamrup, Guwahati, has dismissed the plaintiff-petitioner's suit, instituted, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking, inter alia, recovery of khas possession of the suit land and permanent injunction restraining and prohibiting the defendants-opposite party from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner from the suit land and the houses standing thereon.
(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner.
(3.) The respective cases of the parties to the suit, as correctly noted by the learned trial Court, are as under: Plaintiffs' case "2. Plaintiff came to occupy the suit land in the year 1963. Thereafter, stage by stage, he constructed one Assam Type House over the land. A brick boundary wall was also erected by the plaintiff. Some of the rooms of that house were let out on rent to different persons namely Nagen Deka, Dipak Deka and Raju Das. 3. The plaintiff claimed that since the year 1963. on various occasions, the defendants have beendisturbing his possession over the suit land and also been trying to evict him therefrom. On 17-12-2004 the defendants, claimed to be the sons of the defendants asked the plaintiff to vacate the land. Thereafter, on 21-12-2004 the said defendants again tried to forcefully evict the plaintiff from the suit land. Therefore, on 22-12-2004, the plaintiff filed a case under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. 4. On 05-02-2005, the plaintiff and his family went to "Morigaon. They returned on 10-02-2005. They found that the defendants have illegally occupied the entire suit land along with the premises standing thereon. They also found that their tenants have also been already evicted from the tenanted premises. The plaintiff stated that he got the information that 08-02-2005 the defendants have illegally occupied the suit land and after breaking the lock of his house they entered into the same and occupied it. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit on 15-02-2005. Defendant's Case 5. The defendants Gajen Deka and Sarat Deka (since deceased) filed a common written statement. The defendants Prabal Deka and Hemanta Kalita filed another common written statement along with a counter-claim for a decree for declaration and right, title and interest and for permanent injunction. On 18-06-2006, this Court passed a direction under Order 8, Rule 6 of the CPC for separate registration of the counter-claim as another title suit. Case of Gajen Deka and Sarat Deka 6. They denied the entire case of the plaintiff. These two defendants claimed that their father Late Naren Deka was the owner of the suit land. They stated that the house situated over the suit land was built by Late Naren Deka. The defendants disclosed that in the year 1963 the plaintiff approached Late Naren Deka for allowing him temporarily stay in the house situated over the suit land. Naren Deka allowed the plaintiff to stay in the house situated over the suit land because the plaintiff was his nephew. The defendants stated that Naren Deka allowed the plaintiff to stay in the house on a condition that he shall have to vacate the house as and when required and demanded by Late Naren Deka. Initially, there was no electricity connection in that house and for that matter, the plaintiff approached Late Naren Deka for getting electricity. Naren Deka reportedly instucted the plaintiff to procure the electricity connection to the house. But, the plaintiff surreptitiously procured the electricity connection in his name instead of the name of Naren Deka. The plaintiff is the son of the brother of Late Naren Deka. Hence, Naren Deka never had any suspicion about the conduct of the plaintiff taking advantage of that situation the plaintiff also got the house assessed by the municipal authorities in his name. 7. After the demise of Naren Deka, in the year 1994, the present two defendants inherited the suit land and the house thereon. Defendants alleged that the plaintiff has let out some portions of that house to some tenants without the permission of Late Naren Deka. 8. The defendants disclosed that on 6-6-2004. they had an altercation with the plaintiff and after that the plaintiff left the suit land taking his belongings with him. The plaintiff reportedly asked the tenant to attorn to the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants Nagen Deka and Raju Das started paying house rents to the present defendants. 9. The defendants stated that in the year 2004 they sold the suit land to Prabal Deka and Hemanta Kalita (defendant Nos. 3 and 4) by execution of a registered sale deed dated 30-12-2004. They also stated that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have taken possession of the suit land on 7-2-2005. Case of the defendants Prabal Deka and Hemanta Kalita 10. These two defendants supported the case of the other two defendants. They stated that at the time of purchasing the suit land there were some tenants over there, but the tenants had vacated the suit land on 6-2-2005. Thereafter, on 7-2-2005, they were delivered vacant possession of the suit land. For these reasons the defendants prayed for right, title and interest over the suit land. 11. XXX XXX XXX 12. In course of trial, the plaintiff examined two witnesses. The defendants, on the other hand, examined 8 witnesses. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. I have also gone through the materials available in the case record. I have taken up the issue for discussions and decisions in their given order.";