Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1165 (GAU)

Debendra Nath Bora v. Ramdeo Mistry Loha

2017-08-25

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. KK Mahanta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants/ plaintiffs. Also heard Mr. A. Barkataki, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants. 2. The present appellants are the plaintiffs who filed T.S. No. 67/2003 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon, Assam for declaration of right, title and interest and khas possession in respect of the schedule land mentioned in the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiffs/ appellants that they purchased land measuring 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 4 Lechas in various Dag numbers covered by K.P. Patta Nos. 87 and 61 of Kissam, Jakalabandha Town, Mouza-Satial under Kaliabar Revenue Circle in the District of Nagaon, Assam and their names were duly mutated in the record of rights. 3. The defendants/ respondents are residing on a Government plot of land just contiguous to the eastern side of the land purchased by the plaintiffs/ appellants. The defendants/ respondents encroached the land of the plaintiffs/ appellants and as such the suit was filed for declaration of their right, title and interest and khas possession over the suit land. It is pertinent to mention that the schedule land shown in the plaint is 5 Bighas 0 Katha 16 Lechas and the claim of the plaintiffs/ appellants is that the defendants/ respondents encroached 2 Kathas of land on the eastern boundaries out of their purchased land. 4. The defendants/ respondents denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they have been residing over a Government plot of land situated in between the Sekon PWD Road and the eastern boundary of the land belonging to the plaintiffs/ appellants. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title, interest over the suit land? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the suit land and thereby forcefully possessed by the defendants? 4. Whether the defendants have been possessing the Govt. land on the eastern side of the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 6. To what relief/ reliefs is the parties are entitled under the law, equity and justice? 6. The learned trial court took up Issue Nos. 4. Whether the defendants have been possessing the Govt. land on the eastern side of the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 6. To what relief/ reliefs is the parties are entitled under the law, equity and justice? 6. The learned trial court took up Issue Nos. 3 and 4 and came to the finding that the plaintiffs/ appellants had purchased the suit land from the original owners by executing three registered sale deeds and total area of land is 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 15 Lechas only. On the other hand, total area described in the schedule of the plaint is 5 Bighas 0 Kathas 16 Lechas. Accordingly, it came to the finding further that the appellants tried to establish their claim with regard to 2 Kathas of land more than the actual area which was purchased by them by three registered sale deeds. 7. The learned trial court took into consideration the evidence of PW 3, Bakul Satnam who affirmed the existence of CI sheet boundary wall on the eastern side of the land of the plaintiffs/ appellants. The court below came to the conclusive finding that the defendants/ respondents are occupying the land in between the PWD Road and the land of the plaintiffs/ appellants, which is affirmed by the evidence of the Lat Mandal, who supported the claim of the defendants/ respondents that they are residing over a Government plot of land covered by Dag No. 160. Coming to the said finding, the trial court dismissed the suit. 8. The judgment and decree dated 23.03.2009 passed by the trial court in T.S. No. 67/2003 was put to challenge in the first appellate court in T.A. No. 7/2009 in the court of the learned District Judge, Nagaon. The learned District Judge, Nagaon vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.2012 dismissed the appeal thereby upholding the findings of the learned trial court. Thereafter, this second appeal has been preferred which is taken up today for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. 9. Both the courts below had conclusively come to the findings that the plaintiffs/ appellants purchased the land measuring 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 17 Lechas and to that effect they successfully acquired right including the title. Thereafter, this second appeal has been preferred which is taken up today for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. 9. Both the courts below had conclusively come to the findings that the plaintiffs/ appellants purchased the land measuring 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 17 Lechas and to that effect they successfully acquired right including the title. However, with regard to the excess 2 Kathas of land shown in the schedule of the suit land measuring in total 5 Bighas 16 Lechas, the plaintiffs/ appellants failed to show their title with respect to the said excess land measuring 1 Katha 18 Lechas. Having considered the evidence on record, both the courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/ appellants. The findings are concurrent and it is logical that the plaintiffs/ appellants cannot claim more land beyond the one they purchased without any title on the excess land so claimed. 10. On the basis of the submissions of the learned counsels, appearing on behalf of both the parties, this court finds no substantial question of law is involved to be decided by this court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.