1. Smt. Sasthi Sarkar, respondent/plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 195/1999 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2 Karimganj, with prayer for declaration of land holder's right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule II land and for recovery of khas possession of the same. The said prayer was made on account of the land being purchased by her vide registered Sale Deed No. 1100 dated 7.6.1999 from her father Rasik Lal Namasudra.

2. The appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement together with a counter claim. The case, as set out by the defendants, is that one Behari Paul, who was the original owner of the suit land, had donated 3 pows of land to Rasik Lal Namasudra (father of the plaintiff) and Jitendra Namasudra (husband of the defendant No. 1 and father of the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4). According to the defendants, the said 3 pows of land was partitioned among the two brothers and the suit land fell into the share of Jitendra Namasudra and accordingly, said Jitendra Namasudra had become the absolute owner. Having land holder right over the land described in the Schedule I of the plaint, be it mentioned that over the said parcel of land, Jintendra Namasudra had also constructed his residential house. On the demise of Jitendra Namasudra, the defendants became the owners of the suit land by virtue of being legal heirs.

3. It is the case of the defendants that having come to know about the existence of aforesaid Sale Deed No. 1100 dated 7.6.1999 the same had clouded their status in respect of the property described in the Schedule. Accordingly, the defendants along with written statements had also put up counter claims. The defendants prayed for a decree against the plaintiff and in their favour with further prayer for declaration of possessory right over the land described in the Schedule I of the plaint and as well as for a declaration that the registered Sale Deed No. 1100 dated 7.6.1999 is void, illegal and in-operative.

4. On the basis of rival pleadings, the trial court framed as many as 9 Issues and Issue No, 6, which pertains to as to whether the defendants are licencee in respect of the suit land, is the Issue directly related to the substantial question of law, so formulated,-in this appeal.

5. Upon appreciation of evidence on record, more particularly, Exhibit 6 produced by the plaintiff being the registered Sale Deed executed by Rasik Lal Namasudra in favour of the plaintiff, which was duly proved by PW2, i.e., the Deed writer, the said Issue No. 6 was answered by holding that since there was no evidence to support the title of Jitendra Namasudra in respect of the suit land, accordingly, the defendants have been occupying the suit land without any right, title and interest as licencee. The said Issue No. 6 was decided against the defendants by taking note of the deposition of PW1, whereby the statement was made that the defendants had taken 15 days' time to vacate the suit land.

6. The trial court having held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree in view of the findings of Issue No. 4 relating to right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land, therefore, decreed the suit on contest with declaration that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the Schedule II land of the plaint and is also entitled to recover possession of the same by dismantling the temporary house existing over it, together with permanent injunction against the defendants from encroaching upon any portion of the Schedule I land. The judgment and decree in the said Title Suit No. 195/1999 was passed on 8.5.2002.

7. Title Appeal No. 34/2002 was preferred by the appellants/defendants and the First Appellate Court, upon appreciation of evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on contest by affirming the judgement and decree passed by the trial court. The said Title Appeal No. 34/2002 was dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 24.5.2004.

8. On second appeal befo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document