SADANANDA KEOT Vs. JONA RAM SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation. This litigation is continuing for a period of more than 31 years. It started in the year 1966 and today we are in the fag end of 1997. The decree obtained in the year 1972 has been stalled by resorting to this second round of litigation. Earlier two suits were filed being TS 44 and 45 of 1966 and that was filed by Ghinaram and Jomaram - defendants in the present suit and that was filed against the following persons :(i) Bhogram, (ii) Ratneswar, (iii) Gopal, (iv) Joyram, (v) Bipin, (vi) Hemchandra, (vii) Kinaram.

(2.) These defendants are the sons and grandsons of one Dehiram. Those two suit being 44 and 45 of 1966 was filed by Ghinaram and Jamaram on the ground that originally the land belonged to Muhiram and Muhiram had no issue and as such Ghinaram and Jamaram being the brothers of Muhiram inherited that land and they were in occupation of that land and these defendants dispossessed them from the land and as such, the suits were filed for declaration of right, title and for recovery of khas possession. Both the suits were dismissed by the learned Munsiff. There were two Title Appeals and appeals were allowed and the suits were decreed. Thereafter, Second Appeals Nos. 157/69 and 159/69 were preferred by the defendants. The decree of the appellate Court was affirmed. The defence taken up by the defendants in the suits was that Dehiram purchased the land from Muhiram and as such he became the owner of the land and the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree. That plea of purchase was discarded by appellate Court and the suits were decreed. Thereafter, second round of litigation started in the year 1972. Dehiram had a son named Kushram, but he died before 1966 i.e. before the filing of the earlier two suits. He had the wife named Golapi and one son Joyram. Joyram was a defendant in the earlier suit and one of the Joyram's son Kinaram was also defendant in the earlier suit, but another son Sadananda son of Gopal (defdt. No. 2) was left out and now second round was started by Golapi and son Sadananda, the son of Gopal who was a defendant in the earlier suit and the plea taken up by them for filing this suit to avoid the earlier decree was that they were not made party in the suit and as such that decree was not binding on them. Their further plea was that they have right, title and interest over the land inasmuch as Dehiram purchased the land from Muhiram and in evidence there was an attempt for a further improvement that Dehiram gifted this land to Golapi. Further the decree are not enforceable as they are fraudulent. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit i.e. TS 36/72. On appeal, the learned ADJ allowed the appeal and dismissed the suits. Hence, this second Appeal. The only substantial question of law in this case is as follows :

(3.) I have heard Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. M. Goswami, learned counsel for respondents.