These two appeals are between the same parties and relate to the same matter raising same controversy between the parties, hence both the appeals are being decided together by a common judgment.

2. Second Appeal No. 10 of 1995 arises from Title Suit No. l3 of 1990. This suit was filed by the appellant. It was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.92 passed by Shri S K Saharia, Munsiff, Bongaigaon. Appellant filed appeal against me said judgment and decree of the Munsiff being Title Appeal No. 37 of 1993. The learned District Judge, Bongaigaon vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.94 dismissed the appeal. Thus giving rise to Appeal No.10 of 1995.

3. Second Appeal 9 of 1995 arises from Title Suit No.9 of 1993. This suit was filed by the respondent, Smti Bharati Narzary. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff Bongaigaon vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.92. Appellant filed appeal against the said decree-being Title Appeal No. 31 o£ 1993. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.94 dismissed the appeal. Thus giving arise to Appeal No. 10 of 1995.

4. In the two suits, one filed by the appellant and the other filed by the respondent, factual and legal controversy and the land which was subject matter were identical. Hence both the suits and the appeals filed in relation thereto were treated analogous matters and were decided together both by the Munsiff and the District Judge by common judgment and decree. It is for this reason that the above two second appeals are also being disposed of by me by a common judgment.

In Title Suit No. 13 of 1990, the appellant herein claimed for a decree of declaration of his rights, title and interest of ownership and khas possession over an area of 2 kathas and 10 lechas of land in Dag No.l70 of final Khatian No.29 Patta No.27 and Patta No.279 on the basis that the said and was purchased by him from its owner Shri Sarat Chandra Choudhwy vide registered sale deed dated 4.5.1983 (being Sale Deed No, 393 (Ext. Ka).

In the suit apart from others who were formal defendants, respondents was impleaded as defendant No. l. The respondent filed Title Suit No. 9 of 1993 praying for the issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and his men from damaging his property is from causing; interference in his possession inter alia on the basis that he was the owner and in possession of the lands in the said Dag No. measuring 1 katha 5 leehas which was purchased by Mr under registered sale deed from Ramoni Mohan Choudhary (one of the son of Sarat Chandra Chaoudhary). According to the respondent, after purchasing the land from Chandra Choudhury). According to the respondent, after purchasing the land from Ramoni Mohan Choudhury she took possession of the suit land the same day and constructed thereon one roofed GCI sheet cottage (Ek-chalia house) a and kept her chowkidar in the said Ek-chalia house for construction of dwelling house there. She then took up construction one 'L' type Assam Pattern house but when the construction was halfway the appellant on 26.3.90 caused objection in it and asked her to stop the construction work. Hence, the suit.

5. Appellant contested respondents suit. He filed written statement. In the written statement apart from routine pleadings he asserted that he had purchased 2 kathas 10 lechas of land from Sarat Chandra Choudhury, father of Ramoni Mohan Choudhury and original owner of the land on 4.5.83 vide Ext Ka. That Ramoni Mohan Choudhury had been left with no saleable interest in the land in suit (which is subject matter of the suit) and part of the land purchased by him from Sarat Chandra Choudhury vide Ext Ka. He further contended in his written c statement that Ramoni Mohan Choudhury and his other brothers namely, Lok Nath Choudhury, Gauri Kanta Choudhury, Ashani Kumar Choudhury and Ranuswar Choudhury have jointly sold a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 0 katha and 3 lechas from Dag No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document