IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of compliance with the provisions of law as laid down in Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the first appellate court, and the requirement for the judgment to set out points for determination, record the decision thereon, and give its own reasons.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. D.C.C. Phukan, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) where the judgment dated 20.12.2008 and the decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No.10/2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Munsiff No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Suit No.79/2006, is under challenge.

3. Late Bhimraj Patoa was the exclusive owner of 4 Kathas 13 Chataks of land covered by Dag Nos.2034 and 2035 of 2nd R.S. Patta No.146 of Mouza Silchar Town (Itakhola) Pargana. Bhimraj Patoa had his residential house over that land and lived there till his death.

4. In the month of November, 1971, Bhimraj Patoa expired leaving behind his wife Sumitra Patoa and their children. They continued to occupy the aforementioned property.

5. In the meantime, another legal heir named Ranju Patoa also died in the year 1991.

6. Now, Smti Shimla Patoa appeared in the scenario. She is a relative of Sumitra Patoa. Shimla Patoa and her children did not have any place to stay. Thereafter, late Bhimraj Patoa allowed Shimla Patoa and her children to construct a temporary house over a part of his aforesaid land. They were allowed to stay in their house on a condition that they will vacate the said place when they will be asked to do so.

7. In the month of April, 2001, Sumitra Patoa and her children came to know that Shimla Patoa and her children were trying to mutate their names in the land records in respect of the said land.

8. Sumitra Patoa and her children also came to know that Shimla Patoa and her children also managed to get permission from Silchar Development Authority for construction of an Assam Type house there.

9. Therefore, Sumitra Patoa and her children filed a suit for recovery of vacant possession of the land by evicting the legal heirs of Shimla Patoa, as Shimla Patoa had already expired.

10. The legal heirs of Shimla Patoa (the defendants before the trial court) contested the suit by filing a written statement. They admitted that Bhimraj Patoa died in the month of November, 1971 and Ranju Patoa died in the year 1991.

11. They have pleaded that the entire land originally belonged to one Karamchand Patoa and his younger brother Sukhlal Patoa. Karamchand Patoa did not have any children. Therefore, on his demise, his properties were inherited by Sukhlal Patoa. He has four sons namely, Meghraj Patoa, Demraj Patoa, Sibraj Patoa and Bhimraj Patoa. All of them resided together.

12. It is further pleaded that as claimed by Sumitra Patoa, Bhimraj Patoa was not the exclusive owner of the aforesaid plot of land.

13. It is alleged that after the demise of Karamchand Patoa, Bhimraj Patoa tried to deprive his brothers of the said land. The brothers of Bhimraj Patoa were staying over the said land by building separate houses.

14. The defendants claim that they are the legal heirs of late Demraj Patoa who during his lifetime, had procured the permission from Silchar Development Authority to construct a house over the land, which he was occupying.

15. The defendants pleaded that there was an amicable settlement with the plaintiffs i.e. Sumitra Patoa and her children, on the basis of which, they are still residing over the said plot of land.

16. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed six issues as under:

1. Whether the averments made in the plaint are true and correct?

2. Whether the defendants constructed building on the suit land mentioned in the Schedule-II after obtaining permission from Silchar Development Authority?

3. Whether the plaintiffs have right and title over Schedule-I land within which Schedule-II land is situated?

4. Whether the land described in Schedule-II within Schedule-I became share of defendants 1, 2, and 3 as per amicable settlement amongst the plaintiff and the defendants?

5. Whether the plaintif