Jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted in tenancy disputes when rights and records fall under specific tenancy legislation.

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Govt. advocate appearing for respondents No.4 to 6. No representation by the proforma respondents No.7 and 8.

2) By this appeal under Section 100 CPC, the appellants have assailed the first appellate judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2 Kamrup (M), Guwahati in TS No.294/1998, thereby dismissing the suit of the appellants and dismissing the counter-claim filed by the respondents.

3) The case of the appellants-plaintiffs they are the absolute owners of the land measuring 2B-3K-11L, covered by Dag No. 854, 855, 901 of K.P. Patta No. 597 of North Guwahati Town, Mouza- Silasindurighopa, district- Kamrup. The said land is described in the schedule of the plaint. It was projected that the respondent No.1 is the wife of Late Karuna Kanta Baruah and the respondents No. 2 and 3 are the sons of Late Karuna Kanta Baruah and that Late Karuna Kanta Baruah was the son of paternal aunt of the appellants. Accordingly, Karuna Kanta Baruah was appointed as the caretaker of the property of Nabin Chandra Baruah, who was lying in bed during the last part of his life on condition that he would vacate the land as and when required by the appellants. However, the said Karuna Kanta Baruah fraudulently got his name mutated as occupancy tenant and manage to get a draft khatian bearing No. 101/128 over the suit land in the settlement operation of 1957-64 and that the khatian was issued without any notice to the appellants, as such, they were not aware of occupancy right recorded in the name of Karuna Kanta Baruah in the draft chitha of 1957 in respect of the suit land. It was projected that the suit land was a non-agricultural land and was within the jurisdiction of North Guwahati Municipal Town and the said Karuna Kanta Baruah was neither a cultivator nor he had cultivated the suit land for the purpose of his livelihood as he was in government service. Hence, by projecting that the khatian in respect of occupancy tenancy was illegally granted, the suit has been filed by projecting that only when notice of tenancy case No. 9/1997 was served on the appellants, they came to know about the recording of occupancy tenancy right in respect of Karuna Kanta Baruah.

Accordingly, the appellants had prayed for the following reliefs.

i. Declaring the occupancy right and the tenancy khatian granted to Karuna Kanta Baruah, predecessor-in-interest of the defendant No. 1 to 3 and occupancy right tenancy khatian granted to defendant No. 1 to 3 over the suit land, described in the schedule below of this plaint, is illegal, inoperative, unlawful and without jurisdiction.

ii. That the occupancy right and tenancy khatian granted to the defendant No. 1 to 3 and to their predecessor-in-interest, Karuna Kanta Baruah over the suit land, described in the schedule blow, be cancelled and accordingly issue direction to the Revenue Authority and to the Govt. of Assam to cancel it.

iii. That a decree for delivery of khas possession removing the defendant No. 1 to 3 from the suit land described in the Schedule below in favour of the plaintiffs be passed.

iv. That the defendant No. 1 to 3 be permanently restrained by injunction from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land described in the schedule below.

v. That the Govt. of Assam be permanently restrained