All legal heirs must be represented in property claims and served notice to secure rightful interests, underlining the necessity for full inclusion in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. )

Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the appellants as well as Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2010 passed by the court of learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Title Suit No.21/2006 is under challenge.

3. Late Irfan Ali Laskar was the owner of the suit property. On 08.12.1938, on the basis of an agreement, he handed over the said plot of land to Girish Ch. Bhuiyan on monthly rent basis to be payable at the yearend. The yearly rent was Rs.110/- only. The land was handed over to Girish Ch. Bhuiyan for a period of 15 years.

4. Girish Ch. Bhuiyan was doing business of kerosene oil on the said land. In the meantime, Irfan Ali Laskar died on 23.07.1955. He left behind his six sons and three daughters, namely- Abdul Wahab Laskar, Abdul Latif Laskar, Abdul Haque Laskar, Abdul Matin Laskar, Abdul Razzak Laskar, Abdul Monnan Laskar, Hawatun Nessa, Surotun Nessa and Sayatun Nessa.

5. It may be stated that after expiry of the period 15 years on 08.12.1953, as mentioned hereinbefore, Girish Ch. Bhuiyan had surrendered the plot of land to late Irfan Ali Laskar. Girish Ch. Bhuiyan asked for permission to temporarily use the said land till he gets another suitable plot of land to carry on his business. Irfan Ali Laskar allowed the request of Girish Ch. Bhuiyan allowing him to temporarily continue to do his business from the said plot of land.

6. After that, Irfan Ali Laskar had died. His sons Abdul Latif Laskar, Abdul Wahab Laskar, Abdul Razzak Laskar and Abdul Matin also expired within a short period of time. Therefore, their heirs, being the plaintiffs of the suit, could not take any steps to remove Girish Ch. Bhuiyan from the suit land.

7. Subsequently, the plaintiffs found that the suit land was occupied by another entity called H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan. According to the plaintiffs, this H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan was unknown to them. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for eviction of the defendants from the suit land.

8. The defendants denied all the averments on the plaint. They have claimed that they have been continuously occupying the suit land since the days of their ancestor Girish Ch. Bhuiyan. The name H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan is the name of the business of the defendants and it was known to the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, they are tenants by law and they cannot be overthrown from the suit land.

9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:

i. Whether Girish Ch. Bhuiyan contracted the lease of the suit property for H.C.R.K. Bhuiyan Firm from Irfan Ali Laskar, the predecessor of the plaintiffs?

ii. Whether there is any relationship of landlords and tenants in between the plaintiffs and the defendants?

iii. Whether Girish Ch. Bhuiyan surrendered the possession of the tenancy land in the year 1953 to the landlords?

iv. Whether plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property since 1953 and were dispossessed by the defendants on 14.08.02 (at night)?

v. What relief/reliefs plaintiffs are entitled to?

10. During the trial, the plaintiffs examined 2 witnesses and 11 numbers of documents were exhibited. The defendants examined three witnesses and exhibited 16 numbers of documents.

11. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court partly decreed the suit declarin