JUDGEMENT
PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J. -
(1.)Heard Ms. S Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. A M Borbhuiya, learned counsel representing the respondents.
(2.)The present appellants are the defendants in Title Suit No.30/1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Nalbari. The plaintiffs/respondents preferred the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the B-Schedule land described in the plaint. Originally the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint was the paternal property of the fathers of both the parties to the suit. The land described in Schedule-B which is the suit land curved out of the land mentioned in the Schedule-A, which is the share of the plaintiffs/respondents. After the death of the father of the plaintiffs/respondents, they used to live jointly with the father of the defendants/appellants for some years. During the said period plaintiff/respondent No.2 cultivated the land jointly. Subsequently, owing to inconvenience it was requested to the defendants/appellants to partition the Schedule-A land amicably between them on 15.01.1999. The plaintiffs/respondents tried to make partition of the land but the defendants/appellants denied to give the share as described in the Schedule-B of the plaint. However, the defendants/appellants ploughed over the entire Schedule-A land on the plea that they if required, they would deliver the share of the crops. Accordingly, the suit has been filed with the prayers referred herein above.
(3.)The defendants/appellants No.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement. Amongst various defences, a plea was taken that the suit was barred by limitation and also denied that the Schedule-B belonged to the plaintiffs/respondents. It is the defence raised by the defendants/appellants that their father and the father of the plaintiffs/respondents RSA 60 of 2008 divided the Schedule-A land by way of partition in the year 1967. Denying the joint ness of the families of the parties to the suit and also joint cultivation over the suit land, it is the plea taken by the defendants/appellants that they were in continuous possession and cultivating the suit land since 1967 after the partition, so there is no question of further partition. The father of the defendants/appellants after the partition in the year 1967 continued possessing the suit land and had acquired title over the suit land by right of adverse possession and the same title devolved upon the defendants/respondents after the death of their father Dadhi Hazarika. Accordingly, the plaintiffs/respondents have no right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. It is also pleaded that on the request of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, Jogesh Hazarika (substituted by his legal heirs), the defendant/appellant No.1 gave away 2K 17L's of land to the local High School to enable the wife of Jogesh Hazarika to get appointment in the said school. Thus, pleading that the suit has been filed on misleading statements, the defendants/appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.