MAHAMAD ALI AND ANOTHER Vs. NIMAR ALI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Cachar, at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 62 of 1969.

(2.) THE plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that he was a bhagidar under pro forma defendant No. 3, Abdus Sattar Choudhury. in respect of the suit land which measures 3 kedars. and for recovery of khas possession thereof. He also graved for payment of the sum of Rs. 105/ - deposited in Court in connection with a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the parties in respect of the suit land. His case, in brief, was that late Pratap Chandra Roy of Hailakandi town was the owner of the suit land. After his death his sons, Satish Chandra Roy and others, inherited it and they amicably partitioned the land and the suit land, along with other land fell to the share of Satish Chandra Roy. who used to possess the same through different bhagidars at different times. Satish Chandra Roy. in the year 1962, sold the suit land along with other lands to pro forma -defendant No. 3 and delivered possession thereof to him. Pro forma -defendant No. 4. Kutub Ali, was in possession of the suit land along with some other lands as a bhagidar under Satish Chandra Roy. In 1963 defendant No. 4 executed a bhaginama in favour of defendant No. 3 and enjoyed and possessed the land on bhagi settlement. Thereafter defendant No. 4 relinquished the land in favour of the owner after one year when the plaintiff got settlement of the land as bhagidar under defendant No. 3 in 1964. The plaintiff executed a bhaginama in favour of defendant No. 3 and was in possession of the land. Thereafter defendants Nos. 1 and 2 disturbed the plaintiff in his possession and therefore he instituted M. Case No. 183/65 under Section 145. Criminal P. C. in which possession was declared by the Magistrate in favour of second party (defendants 1 and 2). The plaintiff alleged that he had grown paddy on the disputed land, which was seized and sold by the criminal Court and the sale proceeds of Rs. 105 were deposited in Court. He claimed that he was entitled to that amount.

(3.) THE Munsiff framed six issues in the suit and they are as follows: -