The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is vitiated by perversity?”

Factual Matrix :-

2. The title suit was brought up by the plaintiffs Sunil Das and Subhas Das against Amulya Das and his legal heirs. The plaintiff’s case is that a parcel of land ad-measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 10 Lechas described in the schedule kha of the plaint was under the ownership and possession of Surendra Das. This parcel of land will hereinafter be referred to as the suit land. After the death of Surendra Das, his legal heirs, namely Sudhangshu, Sukdev, Sushil and Biswadev, inherited the suit land. On 10.02.2005, the plaintiffs purchased this parcel of land from Sudhangshu Das and others by executing a registered Sale Deed No. 57/2005. However, on 05.09.2005, the defendants No. 1 to 7 entered into the suit land and constructed one thatched house and encroached the suit land by constructing a fence, thereby dispossessing the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No. 2 Subhash Das then filed a case under Section 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) and the suit land was attached. Upon objection by the defendants, the attachment was vacated. The case was then transferred to Tamulpur and was numbered as 4M/2010.

3. The defendants contested the title suit and submitted a written statement contending inter-alia that there is no cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation and thus, not maintainable. It has been averred that Surendra Das was the original owner of the suit land and during his lifetime the defendants had purchased the suit land about 28-30 years ago from the original owner Surendra Das. The defendant No. 1 had taken possession of the suit land and had been residing on the suit land for about 28-30 years peacefully. The Sale Deed No. 57/2005 is thus illegal as the defendants have already acquired right, title and interest by way of adverse possession over the suit land.

Decision of the Trial Court :-

4. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court :-

“1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the defendant no 1 to 4 acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for?

5. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?”

5. It was held by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the suit land on 10.02.2005 and the defendants have dispossessed them on 05.09.2005. The plaintiffs then filed the Case No. 205m/2005 under Sections 145/146 CrPC and later on, this case was transferred to Tamulpur and numbered as 4M/10. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the Title Suit No. 41/2013 in the year 2013 for declaration, partition, possession and other consequential relief and thus, the suit was not barred by limitation.

6. On issue Nos. 4 and 5, it was held by the learned Trial Court that on 10.02.2005, the plaintiffs purchased the suit land described in schedule kha of the plaint, from Sudhangshu Das, legal heir of the original owner Surendra Das. Allegedly, on 05.09.2005, the defendants No. 1 to 7 entered into the suit land and constructed one thatched house, and encroached the suit land by encompassing the same with a boundary fence, thereby dispossessing the plaintiffs. This impelled the plaintiffs to file a case under Sections 145/146 of the CrPC, which was transferred to Tamulpur and was numbered as 4M/1