Point of Law: It is trite that once declaration of right, title and interest have been granted in favour of a particular person, person who claims adversarial interest has to show a better title as to why he should be allowed to remain in possession.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Shishir Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “Code”) challenging the judgment and decree 08.08.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.1/2018 whereby the said appeal was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Court of the Munsiff No.1, Lakhimpur, in Title Suit No.12/2013.

3. The instant appeal is taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code and this Court is required to consider as to whether any substantial question of law can be formulated in the instant appeal which has been proposed in the Memo of Appeal in terms with Section 100(3) of the Code. For the purpose of convenience the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the Trial Court.

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the elder brother of the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are known to the Plaintiff. It is further alleged in the plaint that the Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and as he was in need of money for which the suit land was sold to the Plaintiff vide a registered Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012. On the basis of the said Deed of Sale, the Plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land. The Defendant No.2 as per the Plaintiff was the daughter-in-law of the original pattadar Smt. Lakhi Dey and wife of Late Uttam Dey. The Defendant No.2 was allowed to reside on the back side i.e. towards the eastern side of the suit land by the Defendant No.1 temporarily until the Defendant No.2 could make other arrangements for her residential house. It is the further case of the plaintiff that as the Plaintiff decided to purchase the suit land, the Plaintiff have asked the Defendant No.2 to vacate which she initially promised to vacate. After the purchase of the suit land, there was a verbal agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 and accordingly the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant No.1 to continue his business in the suit land and also agreed to enter into deed of agreement for lease of the house standing upon the suit land but the Defendant No.1 avoided to enter into the written agreement and also refused to vacate the suit premises. On 02.10.2012 at round 2.30 PM, when the plaintiff went to the Defendant No.2’s house to enquire as to when the Defendant No.2 shall vacate the house and the Defendant No.3 was also present in the house of the Defendant No.2 but both Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 refused to vacate the house and told the plaintiff never to come to them. It is under such circumstances that the plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land; for recovery of possession by evicting the Defendants at their own cost and for permanent injunction against the defendants prohibiting the Defendants and agents from entering into the suit land. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.12/2013 and was filed before the Court of the Munsiff No.1, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.

5. The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed their joint written statement and also set up a counter claim against the plaintiff and the Defendant No.1. From a perusal of the said written statement, it transpires that the suit land is the ancestral property of the husband of Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.2 was living in the ancestral house located in the suit land with her two daughters. It was further mentioned that the Defendant No.2 and her husband were running a hotel in a temporary shed constructed near the road of the suit land but after the death of her husband on 18.08.2009, the Defendant No.2 could not run the hotel alone for which she let out the shed located on land m