IMPORTANT POINT
A decree, lawfully obtained, must be taken to its logical end.

A.K. Goswami, J.—By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151, C.P.C. the petitioner has impugned the order dated 9.5.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon. in Misc.(J) Case No. 20/13, arising out of Title Execution Case No.7 /12, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the C.P.C. read with Section 47 and Section 151 of the C.P.C. was rejected with cost of Rs.3.000.

2. I have heard Mr. B. R. Dey, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. S. S. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent/decree-holder.

3. By an order dated 28.5.2014 passed by this Court, notice on the proforma respondent (the proforma respondent being the wife of the petitioner) was dispensed with.

4. The wife of the petitioner, i.e., the proforma respondent, as plaintiff, had filed a Title Suit being TS No. 15/2007, against the present respondent, as defendant with the prayers (i) to pass a decree with a declaration that the plaintiff had already acquired a good and fair adverse possessory right and interest over the suit land, (ii) to pass a decree with a declaration that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit land due to acquiring of adverse possessory right and interest by the plaintiff over the suit land, and (iii) to pass a permanent injunction against the defendant, his men, agents, etc. by restraining them not to make any further attempt, or to try, to enter and acquire the suit land and also not to create any disturbance towards the peaceful and khas possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land, (iv) cost of the suit, and (v) any other relief to which the plaintiff was entitled to.

5. Schedule-A to the plaint was a piece of land, which measures 12-12-1/2 Lecha covered by Patta No. 518. Dag No. 762. Khatian No. 266 situated at Bongaigaon town.

It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the lawful owner and possessor of Schedule-A land. The boundary of Schedule-’A’ land was described as follows:

North : Drain and road

South : Aruna Bala Gore

East : Defendants land. i.e., west

ern portion of the suit land.

West : Road

6. The suit land was specifically described in Scheduled-B to the plaint. The same is also a plot of land measuring 12-1/2 Lecha, covered by Patta No. 518, Dag No. 762, Khatian No. 266, at Bongaigaon town. The boundary of the said plot of land was described as follows:

North : Drain and road

South : Aruna Bala Gore

East : Sujit Das

West : Lina Das (Plaintiffs land)

7. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that she had entered into possession of the Schedule-B land in the year 1990 and had continued to possess the same, uninterruptedly, to the knowledge of the defendant and: in the process, acquired title to the land by way of adverse possession. Though the suit land was purchased by the defendant from one Sri Jayanta Haldar, in the year 1989, vide registered Sale Deed No. 1073, the defendant did not get physical possession of the suit land, and his vendor, namely, Jayanta Haldar, who was arrayed as proforma defendant in the suit, had also not got delivery of possession of the land from his vendor, namely, Narayan Chandra Roy. It is pleaded that Schedule-A and Schedule-B land are attached to each other. On 25.3.2007, the defendant, accompanied by some persons, sought to enter and occupy the suit land but such attempt was thwarted. In view of the apprehensions generated that the defendant may dispossess her, the suit was filed praying for reliefs which are already noted above.

8. The defendant submitted written statement as well as counter-claim valued at Rs. 1,80,000. The defendant pleaded that after purchase of the suit land, meaning thereby the Schedule-B land, he had taken delivery of possession and. in the Sale Deed by which he purchased the suit land the husband of the plaintiff was one of the witnesses. His vendor, Jayanta Haldar, had pur