Point of Law: Object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2015 and dated 30.10.2015, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi, in Title Appeal No. 32/2014, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2014, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi, in Title Suit No. 139/2006.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents/plaintiffs claimed that they are the non-evictable tenants of the appellants/defendants since the days of their predecessor. Their predecessors, namely, Yakub Ali, Munim Ali & Amir Ali, were the non-evictable tenants under the appellants/defendants since the time of their father-Late Fason Mia and the same devolved upon them through inheritance. The tenancy right over the suit land was declared by the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1 in Title Suit No. 44/1988 and it was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 18/1992 and also in the Second Appeal No. 46/1996. The respondents/plaintiffs also averred that the appellants/ defendants upon being frustrated on failure to evict the plaintiffs lawfully, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and finally dispossessed them during the pendency of the Title Appeal in the month of October 2005 to December 2005. In Title Suit No. 139/2006, the defendants contested the case by filing their written statement, wherein, it was contended that the suit is barred by res-judicata. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and the suit land is owned and possessed by them exclusively. Further, the defendants assailed that the suit of the plaintiffs has no cause of action and it is not maintainable.

4. On the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Munsiff No. 1 framed the following issues to decide the case:-

1. Is there any Cause of Action for the Suit?

2. Is the suit barred by limitation?

3. Is the suit barred by principle of resjudicata?

4. Whether the judgment and decree of the Title Suit No. 44/1988 is binding upon the defendants?

5. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants?

6. Whether the plaintiff acquired occupancy right over the suit land?

7. Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of the instant suit from the suit Schedule-I land?

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of possession of the suit schedule land evicting the defendants therefrom?

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decrees as prayed?

10. What relief(s) the parties are entitled to?

5. The plaintiffs/respondents examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses and also exhibited some documents in favour of their case. The defendants/appellants did not adduce any evidence, however, they duly cross-examined the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

6. The issue No. 1 was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents which relates to cause of action of the suit. From the pleadings as well as from the written statement of the defendants, it is seen that there is a claim of legal right which needs to be ascertained and hence, the learned Munsiff No. 1 decided the issue of cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.

7. Coming to issue No. 2, wherein, it is discussed by the learned Munsiff No. 1 that the cause of action for the present case starts only from the year 2005 when the defendants made attempts to dispossess the plaintiffs and ultimately, it is claimed that they have been dispossessed during the pendency of this case and accordingly, a fresh cause of action arose in the year 2005. Accordingly, the learned Munsiff No. 1 held that the suit is not at all barred by limitation though the appellants/defendants mainly stressed on the point that the judgment and decree of Title Suit No. 44/1988 passed in the year 19