Point of law: “Any aggrieved party” the expression employed in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proceedings, who has succeeded in securing the relief prayed for, is not a party aggrieved though the order contains a finding or two adverse to him. The respondent can support the order and pray for the ultimate decision being sustained, without filing a revision of his own, and for achieving such end he may seek reversal of any findings recorded against him. However, if the non-petitioning party feels entitled to a more beneficial or larger order in his favour but was allowed a lesser or smaller relief then to the extent of claiming the more beneficial or larger relief he should have filed a revision petition of his own as he was “an aggrieved party” to that extent.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. This is the petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No. 48/2011, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 150/06 was reversed.

2. The brief facts of the instant case is that the respondents herein filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant; for perpetual injunction, etc. The case of the plaintiff in the suit that he is the absolute owner of the plot land measuring 0 Bigha, 1 Katha, 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 491 under P.P. Patta No. 62 situated at Kalibari, Dibrugarh town Mouza, Marwari Patty, P.O. and District Dibrugarh. Upon the said land, their stand a house covered by Holding No. 193 of Ward No. 9 and other properties. The plaintiff further case is that on 01.01.1995, the defendant came into occupation and possession of the house premises described in the schedule to the plaint on a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, on the condition that the defendant would pay the house rent to the plaintiff within the 1st week of each succeeding English Calendar month; that the defendant would vacate and deliver the house premises to the plaintiff as an when asked; that the defendant would not sub-let or hand over the possession of the same to any other persons and that the defendant would not cause any nuisance and disturbance to the plaintiff as his other family members under any circumstances. Thereafter, since January, 2005, the defendant had not paid the rent for which the plaintiff has send a Legal Notice dated 11.09.2006 asking the defendant to vacate and deliver peaceful vacant possession of the house. However, the defendant did not pay any heed to the said notice. Apart from the said the plaintiff also claims that he bona-fidely requires the suit premises for his own use. It is on the basis of the said averments, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the reliefs as above mentioned. The said suit was filed on 14.11.2006 and was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 150/2006.

3. The defendant who is the petitioner herein filed his written statement on 28.02.2007 denying to the statements and allegations made in the plaint and also challenged the maintainability of the said suit. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was his specific case that he came to occupy a vacant portion of land measuring 35 x 10 ft. for storing Tyres materials on annual lease rent of Rs. 2,400/- in the year 1980 and thereafter, the defendant constructed two C.I. Sheets Roof house with Pucca Wall and Pucca Floor by spending a sum of Rs. 35,000/- and the same has been reduced to ashes on account of fire in the year 1991. It is the further case of the defendant that on 13.06.1985, 21.03.1989 and 29.03.1989, the plaintiff by executing mortgage deeds had taken from the defendant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and 36,600/- and 36,600/- respectively. It is also mentioned that on 23.12.1991 after devastating fire in the year 1991 another amount of Rs. 36,600/- was taken by the plaintiff from the defendant. In total the plaintiff took a sum of Rs. 1,19,800/- but the plaintiff failed to execute and neglected to execute the Deed of Sale in favour of the defendant after the expiry of 8 (eight) years as per the conditions/stipulation contained in the mortgaged deeds. It was the further case of the defendant that the plaintiff had only mortgaged the vacant land and the defendant by spending a huge amount constructed four C.I. Sheets Roof house for the Tyre godown purpose and also install Tyre Retreading machine thereon and have been enjoying peaceful possession thereof. It may be relevant to take note that from a perusal of the written statement there was no mention whatsoever that there was any construction carried out by the defendant pursuant to the fire as alleged to be happened in the year 1991. Further to tha