Plaintiffs in a title suit must prove their ownership to succeed, independent of the defendants’ claims. Failure to provide adequate evidence results in dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment dated 09.07.2024, along with decree dated 14.08.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rangia (first appellate court hereinafter), in Title Appeal No. 06/2015.

2.1. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment dated 09.07.2024 and decree dated 14.08.2024, the learned first appellate Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 11.08.2015 and decree dated 18.08.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup (Amingaon) (trial court hereinafter) in Title Suit No. 148/2014.

3. For the sake of convenience and also to avoid confusion, the parties herein this appeal, are referred to, in the same status, as they appeared in the title suit.

Background Facts:-

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:-

“The appellants, as plaintiffs had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 148/2014, before the learned trial Court for declaration of right, title, interest, ejectment, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

At first, the case was instituted in the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (Guwahati) and thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kamrup (Amingaon).

The case of the plaintiffs is that their father was the absolute owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring 3 kathas 17 lechas situated at village Bamungaon, covered by Patta No. 79 and Dag No. 1258, as described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint.

It is the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that their father had purchased the aforesaid plot of land about 50 years back and they had been residing in the said plot of land by constructing a house and after the death of their father, the entire plot of land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff No. 1 for and on behalf of all the legal heirs of Late Mahamood Ali. However, dispute arose relating to 1 katha 18 lechas of land in the said Dag and Patta, which their father had purchased from Tamizuddin Ali and the same is the suit land as described in the Schedule 'B' of the plaint.

Further pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that their father, during his lifetime, had allowed his younger brother, Jamiruddin Ahmed (since deceased) to stay in one part of the suit land, measuring about 18 lechas and Late Jamiruddin Ahmed was the permissive occupier in respect of the suit land, now occupied by the defendants as described in the Schedule 'B' and after his death both the defendants continued to live in the same house standing on the suit land in which the father of the defendant No. 1 used to live during his lifetime free of cost.

Further pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that their father allowed the father of the defendant No. 1, to occupy the house as permissive occupier on the condition that Late Jamiruddin Ahmed would vacate the same as and when the same is required by Late Mahamod Ali. But, when the plaintiffs asked the defendants to vacate the suit land and the house, the defendants refused to do the same. Then, in the month of February, 2007, the defendants took an attempt to occupy the land measuring about 1 katha which is part of Schedule 'A' land forcefully and to that regard, the plaintiff No. 1 filed an application, under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. and upon the same, Misc. Case No