In an earlier title suit, namely, Title Suit No. 152 of 1962 there was an compromise between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff-respondent and according to the said compromise the southern half of the land covered by old patta No. 15/623 vested with the plaintiff while the northern half on the defendant-respondent No. 1. Accor­ding to the plaintiff the area of the land was 4-Bs, 2-Ks, 5-Ls equivalent to 1.43 acres approximately- But this area is not admitted by the defendant No. 1. In the last survey this old patta was recorded as new patta No. 15/38 and covered by C. S. Plot No. 2007 and the area of land was shown as 1.36 acres. Plaintiff-respondent has alleged that reduction of area of-12 acres was due to encroachment of land by the defendant-appellants. After the above compromise decree, the land was demarcated in two half's by making a louri i. e. mud wall of 1” or 1 ½” height. It is alleged that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff-respondent, defendant •appellant No. 1 started encroachment on the southern half of the plaintiff's land in spite of repeated objections and thereafter the defendant-appellants constructed a dwelling house wherein defendant-appellant No. 2 is now residing with his family. Hence, the suit. A joint written statement was filed. Though the compromise decree was not disputed, but it is alleged that it was never executed. According to the defendants-appellants the plaintiff respondent was never in possession of any portion of the suit land though defendants are in continuous possession.

2. On the pleadings the following issues were . framed :

"1. Has the plaintiff right and title over the land ?

1 A.. What was the area of land covered by old patta 15/673 ?

1B. Whether the plaintiff was to get half of the said land according to the compromise decree dated 20. 11. 63 in T.S. No. 152 of 1962 ?

Or

Whether the defendant 1 was to get 11/2 Lousal of the said land according to the said compromise decree ?

1C. Whether the area of the said land was wrongly recorded in new patta No. 15/38 by reducing an area of 12 acres due to the encroachment made by the defendants ?

2. Has defendant No. 2 encroached on the suit land and resided therein by constructing of houses without any right whatsoever ?

3. Whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land ?

4. Is the suit barred by Limitation ?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

6. Whether the suit suffers from defect of parties ?•

3. The first contention of Mr. T. Bhubon Smgh learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff amended the plaint without any orders of the learned trial Court and the recast plaint was not in accordance with any order of the learned trial Court. He has further alleged that in the amended plaint the area of land was not given in measurement of bighas etc. 1 have perused the original record and I find that the question of amendment of the plaint was considered in a" separate Case No. 200/72 Vide order in the "main suit passed on 2.9. 19 72. Amendment was allowed with cost vide order dated 9.11. 1972 and the recast plaint was filed on 21.11.1972 and on the said amendment plaint the learned trial Court has put his signature with the seal. A copy of toe' amended plaint was also furnished to the defendants.' Thereafter oh 25.11:72 additional issues were framed and by the order dated 2. 11. 1972 examination of further witnesses was ordered and the witnesses were examined accordingly. I have perused the amended plaint and 1 find that in para 1 of the plaint the area of the land has been given as 4-Bs, 2Ks, 5-Ls (1.48 acres). So, the contention of Mr. T. Bhubon Singh has no force,

4. Mr. Bhubon Singh has urged that the compromise, decree was not executed, and as required under the provisions of C. P. C. the decree was. not sent to4he Collector, Exhibit-A/1 is the compromise decree with the conditions of compromise. On perusal of the said compromise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document