Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

RSA 40/2017. Gauhati High Court

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberRSA 40/2017
Judgement DateApril 03, 2021
CourtGauhati High Court

RSA 40/2017

: BEFORE :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

03.04.2017

Heard Mr. D.C.C. Phukan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant/ appellant against the judgment and decree dated

02.06.2016 passed in Title Appeal No. 6/ 2016 by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon.

The plaintiff/ respondent preferred the Title Suit No. 2/ 2011 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Morigaon for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule A to the plaint and for recovery of Khas possession of B Schedule land which is part and parcel of A Schedule land along with other consequential relief. I t is case of the plaintiff/ respondent that their father was the original owner of Schedule A land measuring 6 Bigha 2 Katha 1 Lechas covered by Dag No. 629 of periodic patta No. 106 of Outalabori Kissam Mouza Buragaon. Originally land measuring 31 Bigha 3 katha 18 Lechas covered by Dag No. 53, 307 and 629 was not periodic patta No. 106 but under the annual patta. On the payment of premium by the Late father of the plaintiff/ respondents the same was converted to the periodic patta land in the name of the late father of the plaintiff/ respondents. To that effect records were corrected.

Page 1 of 5

On the death of their father, the plaintiff/ respondents inherited the same and they have been possessing after their names were duly mutated and corrected in the records of right. The plaintiff/ respondents No. 1 lodged a complaint before the District Magistrate, Morigaon upon which a proceeding u/ s 145 Cr.P.C was drawn up. During the pendency of the said Criminal proceeding the defendant/ appellants forcibly erected a chali house over the ‘B’ Schedule land and dispossessed the plaintiff/ respondent denying their right, title and interest.

The defendant/ appellants contested the suit by denying the claim of the plaintiff/ respondent. Their case is that they have been possessing the B Schedule land for past 27 years which was covered by Dag No. 73 and 59 of periodic patta No. 4/ 6. The appellant/ defendant No. 3 purchased the land vide registered deed No. 1027 of 1984 from Md. Lakhi Sheikh, Md. Atar and Md. Momir Ali and thereafter the defendant/ appellants were put to possession.

On the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues.

I . Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

I I . Whether the suit is bad for...

To continue reading

Request your trial