JATIN CHANDRA PAUL AND OTHERS Vs. SMTI MANJURANI PAUL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.84 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 127 of 1978 allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment of the Munsiff No. 2, Silchar, passed in Title Suit No. 244 of 1975 dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the first to third opposite party Late Kajal Chandra Paul along with fourth to seventh opposite party brought a suit in the Court of Sadar Munsiff (Title Suit No. 244 of 1975) against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Late Jagatish Chandra Paul, praying for a decree for recovery of khas possession of the premises described in the schedule of the plaint by evicting the defendants and also for recovery of rent etc. The defendant Late Kajal Chandra Paul contested the suit; filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, Jagat Chandra Paul, one of the plaintiffs, as well as Kajal Chandra Paul, the defendant died and the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff Jagat Chandra Paul and defendant Kajal Chandra Paul were brought on the record. The plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that the defendant was a tenant and he became a defaulter. Besides, the plaintiffs also required the suit house for their own use. After recording the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendant, the Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the defendant was not a defaulter and also there Was no bona fide requirement of the suit house by the plaintiffs.

(3.) Against this judgment and decree the plaintiff filed an appeal (Title Appeal No. 127 of 1978) in the Court of the Assistant District Judge. After hearing the parties, ADJ allowed the appeal answering the issue No. 5 i.e. bona fide requirement of the suit house by the plaintiff, in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. The Assistant District Judge, however, rejected the ground of defaulter and answered the issue in favour of the defendants. Hence, the petitioners have filed this present revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Assistant District Judge.