Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra

1. Heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, Senior learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant on admission. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Marigaon in Title Appeal No. 11/2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010 passed by the Munsiff, Marigaon in Title Suit No. 48/2006.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent being Title Suit No. 27 of 2005 for declaration of right, title and interest, for recovery of khas possession and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit was valued by the plaintiff, hereinafter referred only as the respondent, at Rs. 1,50,000/- and accordingly ad-valorem Court fees was paid.

3. A part of the suit land as described in the Schedule-A to the plaint, was grabbed by the appellant, on taking advantage of absence of Jai Narayan Agarwala, the original Pattadar and the appellant got their name mutated without any notice to the original Pattadar. Thereafter, by an order dated 08.07.2005 as passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Marigaon the said entry was cancelled and the concerned Circle Officer was directed to make necessary correction in the land records including the Rioti Khatian. The suit land was a vacant land without any construction thereon and in the middle part of the of month of April, 2004, the appellant encroached a part of the suit land without any permission from the original Pattadar, initially for holding the Rangoli Bihu and thereafter they started construction of the permanent structure.

4. Having received information about the said illegal activities on 07.06.2005 the respondent as the authorized agent to the original Pattadar visited the said land and on 08.06.2005 the respondent requested the appellant-defendants to vacate the suit land by removing the construction and other structures therefrom. But they refused to do so, hence the suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest of the original Pattadar over the suit land as well as recovery of the khas possession by removing all structures that have been put by the appellant-defendants, couched with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the appellant and its members from interfering with the peaceful possession of the original pattadar.

5. The appellant-defendant filed the Written Statement stating and admitting the status of Jai Narayan Agarwala, as the Pattadar. It is further stated that there is a permanent RCC canopy on the platform as constructed on the said land. They stated that the original Pattadar offered them to sell the suit land and they somehow managed the amount of the consideration of the land and handed over the amount to Jai Narayan Agarwala, the original Pattadar. They further stated that total value of the land was 48,0000/- and they paid Rs. 45,000/-. The original Pattadar also executed one Kuchaa sale deed in presence of many people and with the help of lat mandal. He also handed over the possession to the appellant-defendants on 20.08.1990. They further stated that they requested Jai Narayan Agarwala, the original Pattadar to execute the sale deed on receiving the remaining amount of Rs. 3,000/- but he did not turn up. He submitted that the wife of Jai Narayan Agarwala has instituted a false case against them and as such the said suit may be dismissed.

6. On consideration of the rival pleadings the following issues were framed :

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

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

3. Whether the suit is properly valued and court fees paid is sufficient?

4. Whether Jai Narayan Agarwala was right, title, interest over the suit land?

4.(A). Whether the plaintiff Usha Rani has Locus Standi to file the suit on the basis of the power of attorney?

5. Whether Jai Narayan Agarwala sold the suit land to the defendant Samity?

6. Whether the plaintiff being the lawful