IMPORTANT POINT
Possession cannot be denied to plaintiff when he has proved his title over suit property.

Suman Shyam, J.—Heard Mr. A. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.12.2014 and decree dated 22.12.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nalbari in Title Appeal No.19/2014 whereby the learned First Appellate Court had upheld the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Nalbari in Title Suit No.42/2010.

3. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, as apparent from the records, is that he had purchased the plot of land mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint on 09.06.2009 by means of a registered deed of sale bearing No.466/09 from the defendant No.1 pursuant whereto he was put in possession in respect of the purchased land. The defendant No.1 on 28.03.2010 forcefully dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and thereafter remained in possession of the suit land by constructing a chali house and also dug up a pond. Being aggrieved by such illegal action on the part of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the present suit seeking a declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and also for recovery of possession in respect thereof.

4. The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement denying the averments made in the plaint in general. The case of the defendant, as set out in the written statement, in brief, is that he and his five brothers had purchased 2 bighas of land in the suit dag and patta from one Akbar Ali in the year 1989. Thereafter, the said plot of land had been amicably divided amongst all the brothers and since then the defendant has been enjoying possession over the suit land by constructing a house where he is living with his family. It has been alleged by the defendant No.1 that although the plaintiff had earlier obtained mutation of his name in respect of the suit land on 20.03.2010, yet subsequently the said mutation was cancelled based on an objection filed by the defendant No.1 before the Revenue authorities. According to the defendant No.1, the registered deed of sale bearing Nol.466/2009 is a forged document and hence, the same could not have conferred any valid title upon the plaintiff. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. It may be mentioned herein that save and except the defendant No.1, the other defendants did not contest the suit and the same proceeded exparte against them.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court had framed the following issues :-

“i) Whether there is cause of action for filing this suit?

ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

iii) Whether the plaintiff purchased the suit land from the defendant No.1 on 9.6.09 vide registered sale deed No.466/09 as claimed in the plaint?

iv) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?

v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

vi) To what other relief/reliefs, the parties are entitled ?”

6. During trial both the sides had adduced oral and documentary evidence. On a detail analysis of the materials available on record as well as the averments made by and on behalf of the parties, the learned trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2014 passed in Title Suit No.42/2010.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2014 the defendant No.1 as appellant had preferred Title Appeal No.19/2014 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Nalbari. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned First Appellate Court was pleased to pass the judgment dated 15.12.2014 and decree dated 22.12.2014 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.1.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No.19/2014 the defendant No.1 as appellant has preferred the present Second Appeal.

9. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that from a