A civil court cannot decline to entertain a suit for demarcation of boundary and declaration of title to the land, and a suit cannot be dismissed merely because the plaintiff does not know the demarcation of his or her land.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. With the help of the present application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff has challenged the order, dated 16.2.2006, passed, in Title Suit No. 01/99, by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Tezpur, whereby the learned Court below has rejected, inter alia, the plaintiff-petitioner's prayer for amendment of her plaint.

2. I have heard Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned Senior counsel, for the plaintiff-petitioner, and Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendants-respondents.

3. The material facts and various stages, which have led to the present writ application, may be set out as follows:

(i) The petitioner's case, as plaintiff, in Title Suit No. 1/99, is, in brief, thus: The plaintiff, in terms of a sale deed, dated 22.09.94, which was registered, on 28.9.2004, at the office of Tezpur Sub-Registrar, purchased, in consideration of Rs. 35,000/- from M/s. Bhomra Brothers, a partnership firm, 3 (three) kathas of land under Dag No. 723 (old)/1254 (new), covered by periodic patta No. 557 (old)/58 (new), of Tezpur Town, Mouza-Mahabhairab, District-Sonitpur, for and in the name of her educational institution, namely, Children's Paradise School. In fact, in pursuance of an agreement to purchase the said land, the plaintiffs institution had occupied the land long back by doing earth filling, but the plaintiff wanted to have the land demarcated, through staff of the Settlement Office, before purchasing the same. In terms of, therefore, a request made by the plaintiff in this regard, one of the partners of the said firm applied for demarcation of boundary to the Sadar Circle Officer, Tezpur, who, in turn, through a lat mandal carried out, after giving notice to the neighbours including the defendants, spot verification, demarcated and determined, on 4.11.92, the boundaries of the said land in the presence of the plaintiff, vendors and others of the locality. Since thereafter, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the land without any interruption from any quarter. However, as the western and southern sides of the plaintiffs land were low-lying land, it had not been possible for the plaintiff to reclaim the same by doing complete earth-filling, particularly, because the said low-lying land remains under water throughout the rainy season. The defendants occupy the western and southern sides of the land of the plaintiff purportedly owned by defendant No. 1. Taking advantage of the fact that the defendants' land is situated on the contiguous western and southern sides of the plaintiff's land, the defendants, surreptitiously, erected a bamboo fencing encroaching upon some portion of the plaintiff's land on the western and southern sides, as described in the schedule to the plaint. This encroachment took place on or around 14.1.96, i.e., Magh Bihu. On objections raised by the plaintiff to such encroachment, the defendants removed the bamboo fencing assuring the plaintiff that they would continue to occupy their own land of different dag and would not, in future, disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the land of her said school. Notwithstanding the assurances, so given, the defendants, again, erected bamboo fencing, on the occasion of Magh Bihu, in the year 1997, and despite protests raised by the plaintiff, the defendants have not removed the encroachment. The plaintiff has not been able to fence the entire land of her said educational institution on its western and southern sides up to the institution's actual boundary inasmuch the low-lying land, at the end of the boundary, has to be Filled up by earth to bring it to the level of the rest of the land purchased by the plaintiff in the name of her said school. In order to protect the children, studying in her school, from meeting with accident as the land is a low-lying one and also with a view to starting the work of earth-filling there, the plaintiff wanted the defendants to remo