In the said suit the following prayers were made That the plaintiffs possession of the land in schedule Ka be companyfirmed on declaration of their title thereto and on declaration of the principal defendants unlawful possession null and void that necessary precept be issued to the S.D.C., Bajali Circle, for effecting mutation of the land in Schedule Ka in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the probate and their long term possession That a perpetual prohibitory injunction be issued, restraining the principal defendants from causing hindrance to the possession of the land in Schedule Ka.
The plaintiffs appellants did.
Arvinda Sarma allegedly entered into a deed of exchange of land with the said Hemchandra, grandfather of the respondent herein pursuant whereto the grandfather allegedly came in possession of the lands in question.
1.12 in dag 1660 new /476 old of the same patta within following boundaries North Hari Prasad South Nripen Sarma East Andhu Kalita West Arabinda Sarma/ Dag No.
O R D E R The plaintiffs are before us questioning the companyrectness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 21.8.1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Assam, whereby and whereunder the second appeal preferred by the appellant against a judgment and order dated 23.5.1988 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta, in Title Appeal No.
The learned Trial judge decreed the suit inter alia on the premise that Gandhari did number have any legal right to companyvey the suit land in favour of the said Hemchandra Malakar and companysequently the defendants respondents did number derive any right, title and interest pursuant to and in furtherance of the said Deed of Sale or the Deed of Exchange executed in the year 1960.
Schedule Ka of the plaint was described as under SCHEDULE Ka Land measuring 1 Bigha 2 katha with a revenue of Rs.
The dispute between the parties revolves on the execution of a will by Durga Malakar in favour of the plaintiffs on 8.10.1958 and execution of a purported Deed of Gift dated 5.5.1958, which was in the name of his wife Gandhari.
The defendants respondents did number prefer any appeal against the said findings before the High Court.
1660/476.
We may at this juncture numberice that the plaintiffs filed an application for grant of probate in their favour which was allowed by order dated 20th November, 1973.
1.12 Paise in dage 883 of K.P. Patta No.
The plaintiffs therefore filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Barpeta, which was registered as title suit No.
The names of the respondents were entered into the revenue records of rights.
Land measuring 2 Katha 16 lechas revenue Rs.
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
He is the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs father Nareswar Malakar.
57 Old/368 new of Pathsala town, Mauza Uttar bajali, within the following boundaries North Kiron Sarma South Kiron Sarma East Andhu Kalita West Road.
2.24 paise in dag 1628 new /548 old of K.P. Patta No.
46/1986, was dismissed.
The High Court formulated the following substantial question of law Whether the findings of the lower Appellate Court are vitiated by erroneous interpreting and misleading of the exhibits?
111/1966.
North Ram Nareesh Sarma South Tularam Talukdar East Road West Kiron Sarma.
To what relief, if any, the parties are entitled?
The lands in suit and other lands belong to one Durga Malakar.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
1628 new , 548 old measuring an area of 1 Bigha 2 Katha as also Patta No.
Total land measuring 2 Bigha 4 Katha 2 lecha in the two pattas in the suit land.
254 new /91 old and 4 Katha 6 lechas revenue Rs.
