Point of Law: Civil Law - Recovery of khas possession - It is a settled law that entry of names in records of right does not vest any ownership over the said land and is only indicative about the possession over suit land.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013 and 19.07.2013 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 2/2012 partly allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Goalpara in Title Suit No. 2/2010. The appellants are the defendants in the suit. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration and recovery of possession. The plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant No. 1.

2. A brief narration of the facts would be necessary to appreciate the issue which has arisen for determination.

3. The plaintiff who claimed to be in possession of 1 Bigha of land (Schedule B) claimed ownership right. In the plaint it has been stated that she was in possession for about last 17 years. However, about a year back, the defendants had illegally and forcefully dispossessed her and her family. It has further been stated that a house under the IAY Scheme was constructed which was also occupied by the defendants. Accordingly, the suit was instituted with the following relief:-

“12. That under the above facts and circumstances the plaintiff prays as follows:-

(a) For a decree of declaration that the plaintiff has acquired right to possess the suit land along with its house described in the Schedule ’B’ of the plaint on the strength of revenue record and previous possession.

(b) For a declaration that the plaintiff has acquired right and title to the suit land described in the Schedule ‘B’ of this plaint.

(c) For a decree of possession of the suit land along with its house described in Schedule ‘B’ of this plaint by evicting the defendants and their men, women, workmen, servants etc. from the suit land.

(d) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing possession of the plaintiff over the suit land after its recovery of possession.

(e) For a decree directing to unlock the house illegal locked by the defendants.

(f) For cost and other reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitle to under law and equity.”

4. The appellants/defendants had contested the suit by filing written statement. The claim of the plaintiff was categorically denied and it has been averred that the suit land was owned by the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff had mislead the Revenue Department and mutated her name in the Revenue records. The defendants categorically stated that the suit land was purchased by the defendant No. 1 by way of a registered sale-deed No. 3127 of 1970 whereafter the defendants had taken delivery of possession and was possessing the same illegally. The defendants accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The learned Court of the Civil Judge, Goalpara, after completion of the pleadings had framed the following issues:-

“(i) Whether there is a cause of action for this suit?

(ii) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party?

(iii) Whether according to IAY programme, Government of Assam has allotted a house for construction on the suit land for the plaintiff. Accordingly, IAY house has been constructed over the suit land for which the value of the suit land has been increased and due to said enhancement of value of the suit land and the defendants out of greed have dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land on the month of April, 2008 and then by force they have occupied the said house allotted to the plaintiff along with the suit land?

(iv) Whether the defendant No. 1 Md. Banijuddin Seikh is the owner and possessor of the suit land and defendant No. 1 has purchased the land measuring 2 kathas 5 lechas covered by Khatian No. 33, Dag No. 70 from Md. Sabed Ali by registered sale-deed No. 3127 dated 1970 and accordingly the defendant No. 1 took delivery of the possession of the same?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for?

(vi) What other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to get?”

6. Th