2011 (2) TMI 1454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the suit property i.e., land measuring OB-2K-10L situated at Sorbhog town under Domoka Saka Bousi Mouza. 2. The suit was dismissed by learned Munsif, Barpeta (hereinafter described as "the trial Court") on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced any document to prove his title and the entries made in revenue records were not sufficient for declaring him as owner of the suit property. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff and the defendant died and their legal representatives were brought on record. After analysing the pleadings and the documents produced by the parties, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff-respondents have been able to prove their title. The lower appellate Court noted that as pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which corresponds to new patta No.329. This new patta No.329 relates to suit dag Nos.1310 and 1311 as apparent from Ext.1. Basanta Kumar Choudhury (D.W.3) is the son of said Rati Kanta Choudhury since then. In his evidence in examination-in-chief, he attempted to show that the suit land along with some other land was sold to the defendants in the year 1957/1958 by their brothers Ramesh Choudhury, Chandra Kumar Choudhury and Hiranya Kr. Choudhury. In his cross-examination he has however, pleaded his ignorance whether his two other brothers Chandra Kumar Choudhury and Deb Kumar Choudhury had sold the suit land to the plaintiff Balindra Narayan Adhikari. Then endorsement appearing in the Chitha Ext.gha shows that the suit land measuring 2 Kat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the plaintiff acquired his right and title on the suit land and the plaintiffs are not expected to prove their title on the suit land by producing or proving any sale deed. The defendant Amiya Dutta examined herself as D W.1. She has also admitted in her evidence the fact of purchasing the same land which was in fact given to the plaintiff Balindra Narayan. Towards the close of her cross- examination, she clearly stated that the suit dag Nos.1310 and 1311 stand in the joint names of her husband and the plaintiff, Balindra Narayan. She further stated that this land was originally gifted to Balindra Narayan but they (the defendants) purchased it. Thus, the very evidence of D.W.1 lends support to the plaintiff's claim that they have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpty formality. The suit land which was sold to the plaintiff by two other owners and pattadars cannot be sold again to the defendants. The defendants might have purchased the lands of the suit lands of the suit dags excepting the suit land measuring 2 kathas 10 lechas The plaintiffs right over the suit land cannot be extinguished by the action of the defendants. The defendants illegally entered the suit land only on the strength of Ext.ka though they were not in possession of the same till they illegally entered thereto. Thus, taking into consideration of the entire evidence on record both oral and documentary, I find that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land and the defendants purchased the suit dags and posses....