JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Ms. P Barman, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants in title suit No. 155/2005 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Barpeta filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

The case of the plaintiff-respondents is that 2 Bigha of land covered by Dag No. 1408 under Periodic Patta No. 646 of village Barpeta Road Town described in Schedule A of the plaint was jointly owned and possessed by one Rajani Kanta Barman (Proforma defendant No. 1) and Srikanta Roy Mandal (Proforma defendant No. 2). Out of the said total land measuring 2 Bigha, the proforma defendant No. 1 was the owner with respect to 2K 10L of land forming the northern part of the A Schedule land and the rest 1B 2K 10L of land was owned and possessed by the proforma defendant No. 2 and to that effect a joint patta was issued in the names of proforma defendants No. 1 and 2. The proforma defendant No. 1 sold his share measuring 2K 10L in favour of Smti. Lalita Barman (proforma defendant No. 3) whose name was mutated in the revenue records. On the other hand, the proforma defendant No. 2 sold his share of land measuring 1B 2K 10L in favour of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 vide registered sale deed No. 4837 dated 03.08.1972 and possession was accordingly delivered to him by the said proforma defendant No. 2 where after the name of plaintiff respondent No. 1 was mutated in the land records. Since the last 3/4 years the land purchased by the proforma defendant No. 3 remained under the physical possession of the appellant defendants who was running a nursery over it. The plaintiff respondents are not aware about the transfer deed in favour of the defendant appellants over 2K 10L of land. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 offered to sell the suit land measuring 1B 2K 10L to the plaintiff respondent No. 2 at a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of which the plaintiff respondent No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff respondent No. 2 as earnest money and handed over the possession of the land to him on the strength of a registered agreement for sale No. 218/1999. Since the execution and registration of the said agreement for sale dated 12.06.1999 the defendant appellants had been intending to purchase the suit land. But as the plaintiff respondent No. 1 had entered into the agreement for sale with the plaintiff respondent No. 2, he refused the proposal of the defendant appellants where-after the said defendant appellants threatened the plaintiff respondent No. 1 that they would compel the plaintiff respondent No. 1 to sell the suit land in their favour. On 01.08.1999 the defendant appellants trespassed into the suit land and threatened the workers of the plaintiff respondent No. 2 who were working over the suit land, to vacate the suit land forthwith and there was a quarrel between the plaintiff respondent No. 2 and the defendant appellants. However, at the intervention of the villagers the defendant appellants had to retreat. The conduct of the defendant appellants had endangered the title and possession of the plaintiff respondents over the suit land and as such filed the said suit seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) that a decree be passed declaring that plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land and their possession over the suit land be confirmed;

(b) that permanent injunction be issued against the defendants to restrain them from trespassing into the suit land from dispossessing the from the suit land from constructing and placing any manner of building or other structures upon the suit land as well as from causing disturbance and inconvenience in any manner what so ever in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiffs;

(c) that the cost of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document