The court upheld the lower courts' findings on land ownership, ruling that the plaintiffs proved their rights, and dismissed the appeal due to lack of substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT :

(Devashis Baruah, J.)

Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This is an Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2024 in Title Appeal No.18/2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhubri whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Bilasipara dated 07.10.2023 in Title Suit No.114/2015 was affirmed.

3. The instant case has been taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code to ascertain as to whether there arises any substantial questions of law in terms with Section 100 (4) of the Code that can be formulated in the instant proceedings.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has proposed in the Memo of Appeal certain substantial questions of law. To ascertain as to whether those substantial questions of law can at all be formulated in the instant Appeal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts leading to filing of the instant case.

5. The respondents herein as plaintiffs had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.114/2015 against the appellant along with another Sri Uttam Paul Choudhury seeking declaration of their right, title and interest along with recovery of khas possession and permanent injunction. The facts pleaded in the plaint are that one Santiram Paul Choudhury was the original owner of the land described in the Schedule to the plaint which admeasures 4 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas. After the death of said Santiram Paul Choudhury, his wife and his son, i.e. one Renubala Choudhury and one Ratan Kumar Paul inherited the land described in the Schedule and their names were jointly recorded in the record of right. Subsequently, the said Renubala Choudhury expired leaving behind Ratan Kumar Paul as the sole legal heir. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Late Ratan Kumar Paul and the plaintiff No.2 is the son of Late Ratan Kumar Paul. The proforma defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the daughters of Late Ratan Kumar Paul. It has been alleged in the plaint that taking the advantage that the plaintiff No.1 was a widow and the plaintiff No.2 was the minor, the defendants trespassed into the Schedule land in the month of January, 2013. Under such circumstances, the suit was filed seeking declaration that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the Schedule land; for recovery of khas possession over the Schedule land by evicting the defendants therefrom and demolishing any structures raised by them; for permanent injunction and for any other relief.

6. Upon filing of the suit, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement. In the said written statement, the defendant put various pleas as regards the maintainability of the suit. In the said written statement, the defendant categorically stated that the suit land is in the name of the defendant and he has been possessing and cultivating on their own after the death of the uncle of the defendant No.1. At paragraph No.12 of the written statement, it has been stated that the plaintiffs had not inherited and possessed the suit land after the death of the land owner Late Santiram Paul Choudhury and the said Late Santiram Paul Choudhury had given the suit land to the defendant Nos.1 & 2 during their life time and from that time, the defendant Nos.1 & 2, specially the defendant No.1 has been possessing the suit land with the consent of the defendant No.2 of the plaint. In paragraph No.13, it was stated that Ratan Kumar Paul was the nephew/niece of the deceased Renubala Choudhury. In addition to that, it has also been stated that the defendants have been in possession of the suit land for 47 years and the suit so filed is misconceived.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as 7 Issues were framed by the learned Trial Court which are reproduced herein under:-

(1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

(2) Whether the suit is