1994 (3) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....int family. There was a separation. The suit plot is said to have been noted in plaintiff's possession in 1936 Settlement and the plaintiff has been paying rent. The note in the record-of-rights Ext. 4 is "Jami O. Faldakhal Bishnu Putel." In 1954 the plaintiff obtained a separate Parcha with regard to plot 731 and other plots, and the plaintiff is paying the rent separately -- a rent receipt being Ext. 6 series. The defendant is said to have cut away trees from the suit land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. Thereupon on March 17, 1959 the plaintiff filed this suit for reliefs aforesaid. The defence is that the disputed portion did not relate to plot 731 as alleged : that the defendant is in possession of the dispute....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aintiff to prove that the disputed portion is part of plot No. 731 and indeed a specific issue was raised before the trial Court, namely - "Is the suit land a part of plot No. 731 of holding No. 28?" It appears from record that the defendant had applied before the trial Court for appointment of an Amin Commissioner to locate the suit land. The plaintiff objected to this petition of the defendant for appointment of Amin Commissioner. The trial Court by his order dated March 27, 1961 rejected the defendant's application for appointment of Commissioner. 6. In course of hearing of this appeal it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the case should be remanded for a finding whether the disputed 40 decimal relate to plot....