The Debs sought possession of l Katha 7 Chataks of land and building from the Bhowals in execution of the companypromise decree.
3 for recovery of possession of the portion of Debs by evicting the Debs.
The decree of the trial companyrt further provided that the Bhowals companyld obtain Khas possession of the structures standing on 3 Kathas 9 Chataks of land by payment of Rs.27,000/ to the Debs.
The Bhowals filed objections under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code to this execution application being Misc.
After purchasing the entire land Bhowals filed Title Suit No.41/1966 subsequently re numbered as Title Suit No.5/1972 against Satindra Mohan Deb for a declaration 1 that they were the owners of the entire 3 kathas and 9 Chataks of land, 2 for companyfirmation of their possession over 1 Katha and 7 Chataks of land i.e. the land which they had taken on sub lease from the Debs.
The Debs filled Misc.
On the expiry of the period of the lease Bibekananda Bhowal the original sub lessee and his two brothers purchased from the original owner Satindra Nath Sen the entire 3 Kathas and 9 Chataks of land by a registered sale deed dated 24.6.1966.
In Execution Application No.1/1987 taken out by the Bhowals in that suit, the Bhowals deposited a sum of Rs.9,000/ in companyrt being the value of the structure standing on 1 Katha and 7 Chatkas of land in their possession as per the directions given by the trial companyrt and became the owners of the said structure in execution of that portion of the decree of the trial companyrt which had been upheld by the High Court.
The respondents in all these appeals are the heirs and or successors in title of Satindra Mohan Deb hereinafter referred to as the Debs .
Of these.
as also insofar as it declared the possession of 1 Katha and 7 Chataks of land out of this land and the building thereon, by the Bhowals.
As per the valuation of the trial companyrt they deposited in the execution companyrt a sum of Rs.9,000/ as the value of the structure.
9 and 10 of 1981.
The Bhowals made a Review Application No.11/92 before the High Court to review its order of 25.9.1992.
The lease of 3 Kathas 9 Chataks of land which was executed by Sen in favour of Satindra Mohan Deb in 1939 expired on 13.4.1965.
He claims to have companystructed a single storey building on the land taken under this settlement.
On an application for clarification, the High Court clarified that it had number pronounced on the nature of the possession of the Bhowals in respect of the building standing on 1 Katha 7 Chataks of land in their possession.
This was disputed by the Debs who took out Execution Application No.
These objection was allowed and the Execution Application No.4/75 was dismissed.
however, to be on the safe side they also filed two Revision Petitions from the same judgment and order of the District Judge being Revision Petition Nos.
It was companytended by the Bhowals that under the terms of the companypromise decree the relationship of landlord and tenant was created afresh between the parties and the Debs were number entitled to obtain possession of the said land and building in execution of the companypromise decree.
This was the value of the structures as determined by the trial companyrt.
The two revision petitions were also dismissed thereafter on 27.1.1987.
The High Court by its order dated 25.9.1992 allowed the revision application holding that the Bhowals had numberprima facie case and injunction should number have been granted.
However, the right of filing an appeal and a second appeal which had accrued to the appellants on the date when they filed Misc.
After the dismissal in 1987 of their revision petitions by the High Court the Bhowals made a further application in execution proceeding No.4/75.
The said space will be walled up to the ceiling at the companyt of the plaintiff and within one month.
18/65 was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court companyfirmed the decree of the trial companyrt to the extent that it declared the title of the Bhowals over the entire land companysisting of 3 Kathas 9 Chataks.
The Assistant District Judge decreed the suit by his judgment and order dated 13.7.59 in favour of the Debs.
The appellants companytend that Misc.
In appeal, however, the parties arrived at a companypromise.
27/1975.
The High Court also set aside the order of injunction passed by the trial companyrt restraining the Debs from realizing the rent.
which is before us, is from the order of the High Court dated 25.9.1992 refusing to grant interim injunction to the Bhowals in their Title Suit No.113/83.
That is Civil Appeal No.3053 Of 1995.
therefore, right in granting an interim injunction and the first appellate companyrt was right in dismissing Misc.
The District Judge, however, passed an order for handing over possession of the said area to the Debs and Execution Application No.
Civil Appeal No.3052 of 1995 Which is before us is from this decision of the High companyrt dated 25.9.92 in civil revision 335 of 1988.
He started a pharmacy business in this building which is known as Bhowal Medical Hall.
The land originally belonged to Surendra Nath Sen and his two other companysharers.
Civil Appeal No.6649/1983 is from the order of the High Court dated 8.7.1981 dismissing the two second Appeals bearing Nos.
They were also declared as entitled to possession of 1 Katha 7 Chataks of land and the building standing thereon.
The High Court also set aside the decree awarding companypensation of Rs.200/ per month against the Debs for illegal occupation of the said land.
Thus Civil Appeal Nos.6649 of 1983.
Civil Appeal No.3054/95 which is before us is from this order of 20.1.1993 dismissing the review application.
27/75 raising objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed under the Unamended Code of Civil Procedure under which any order passed on such application was to be treated as a decree.
This was because the High Court held, inter alia, that the Debs as lessees of the said land had companystructed buildings on the portion of land in their possession and were entitled to the protection of Section 5 of the Assam Non Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955.
A first appeal and a second appeal would lie from such a decree.
1995 till 30th April, 1975 and a rent of Rs.
In view of this clarification, the Bhowals applied by Title Execution Application 1/1987 for execution of the decree in respect of the building in their occupation.
The defendant appellant also undertakes to pay as he had been paying the Municipal Tax in respect of the room in his possession.
This was numbered as misc.
The defendant appellant will have numbermanner of right or claim for possession in the aforesaid upper storey after companystruction.
This was dismissed by the High Court by its order of 20.1.1993.
Bibekananda Bhowal, the predecessor of the present appellants took settlement of 1 Katha 7 Chataks of land out of the total land admeasuring 3 Kathas and 9 Chataks from Satindra Mohan Deb on or about 17th of April 1953.
The Bhowals asked for a review of the order of 27.1.1987 but the review petition was also dismissed on 1.7.1987.
In appeal, however, First Appeal No.458/1973 the Gauhati High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the Debs.
It held, modifying the decree of the trial companyrt, that the Bhowals were number entitled to the possession of the land occupied by the Debs by evicting the Debs.
Under a deed of settlement dated 25.3.1939 Surendra Nath Sen gave a settlement of this land to Satindra Mohan Deb for a period of 27 years companymencing from 14,4.1939 and expiring on 13.4.1965.
the structure which was standing on 1 Katha 7 Chataks of land was valued at Rs.9000/ .
Appeal No.60/83 which was filed by the Debs against the order granting the injunction was dismissed.
The defendant appellant will have also the right to vacate the room or surrender the tenancy even before the expiry of the aforesaid period of 10 years on giving one months previous numberice to the plaintiff.
5 .1965.
3052 3056 of 1995 J U D G M E N T Mrs.Sujata V.Manohar.
225/ per month, rent for each month being payable within the 14th day of the succeeding month.
The business was being run by Bibekananda Bhowal with his two brothers.
By Misc.
It, however, admitted the two revision petitions.
case No.23/1987.
41/1956 in the companyrt of the Assistant District Judge, Silchar against the Bhowals for possession of 1 katha and 7 Chataks of land and the building thereon in the occupation of the Bhowals.
Civil Appeal Nos.3055 56/1985 are against the orders passed by the High Court dated 27.1.87 and 1.7.87 in two Revision Petition Nos.114 and 115 of 1981.
In the event of any breach of any companydition mentioned above the defendant appellant will be liable to ejectment by appropriate action in a Court of law.
The High Court dismissed the two second appeals as number maintainable by its order dated 8.7.1981.
18/65 for obtaining possession of this area of 7 X 7.
The relevant terms of the companypromise decree are as follows That the defendant appellant will give up possession of an area of 7 x 7 more or less in the south western companyner of the room in suit in his possession in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of this companypromise and will allow the plaintiff within that period an access to that area.
In the event of numbercompliance with the terms companytained above for his default the defendant appellant will be liable to ejectment in execution of the decree passed in the suit in terms of the companypromise.
That on companypliance of the terms mentioned in paragraph I the defendant appellant shall remain in possession of the room in suit minus the area mentioned in paragraph I as a monthly tenant according to English Calender month for a period of 10 year from 1st May.
That the plaintiff will be entitled to build the upper storey above the building in suit at his expense and a stair case in the aforesaid south western portion given up by the appellant through the opening already in existence for access to the said upper storey.
For the sake of companyvenience the heirs and or successors in interest of Bibekananda Bhowal since deceased who are the appellants before us are hereinafter referred to as the Bhowals.
The trial companyrt was.
In view of the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code.
The High Court reversed the order passed by the executing companyrt and held by by its order of 25.9.1992 that the companypromise decree was executable.
In 1983, the Bhowals i.e. Bibekananda Bhowal and his two brothers filed Title Suit No.113 of 1983 in the companyrt of the Sadar Munsif.
In this application which was decided by the Assistant District Judge on 7.2.1972 he has recorded the companytention of the Bhowals that as far back as in 1965 they had already apportioned the area and delivered possession of that area to the Debs.
The Debs filed Title Suit No.
The Bhowals filed two second appeals being Second Appeal Nos.9 and 10 of 1981 before the high Court.
Civil Appeal No.3053/95.
case was allowed by the executing companyrt on 30th of May, 1988.
114 and 115 of 1981 before the High Court.
That the defendant appellant shall number sublet any portion of the said room in his occupation number transfer his tenancy right to any one else.
13 and 14/1976 from the above decision.
A decree in terms of the companypromise was passed by the appellate companyrt on 10.
According to the Debs, after obtaining this settlement they built some permanent companystruction on a portion of this land.
3055 and 3056 of 1995.
Appeal Nos.
In 1972 the Debs also filed Title Suit No.133/72 against the Bhowals for eviction of the Bhowals from 1 Katha 7 Chataks of land and the building thereon on the ground, inter alia, that the Bhowals had number handed over possession of the said land and building on the expiry of ten years as set out in the companypromise decree dated 10.5.1965.
Case No.12/83 the Bhowals asked for an interim injunction restraining the Debs from entering the suit premises and from changing the structure of the said building either by renovating it or by making, any extension thereto.
The companypromise decree was passed as far back 10.5.1965.
The High Court set aside only the decree of the trial companyrt granting to the Bhowals Khas possession of the land in the occupation of the Debs i.e. 3 Kathas 9 Chataks of land less 1 Katha 7 Chataks of land and the building standing thereon.
The Debs also filed an Execution Application No.15/66 for an amendment of their execution application to get possession of the entire land and building in the occupation of Bhowals.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
Appeal No.60/83 which was filed by the Debs against that order.In this application the Bhowals companytended that the companypromise decree had become unexecutable.
The Amending Act of 1976 provided that an appeal from an order passed on an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code was numberlonger maintainable.
The appeals were allowed by the District Judge on 10.6.1981.
A civil revision being civil revision 335 of 1988 was filed by the Debs before the High Court.
This portion of the decree of the trial companyrt including its valuation of the structures at Rs.27,000/ was upheld by the High Court in appeal.
The Debs came by way of a revision before the High Court, being Civil Revision No.27/1986.
The defendant appellant will vacate and deliver possession of the room in his possession to the plaintiff or his assign or representative in interest on the expiry of the said period of 10 years without any numberice from the plaintiff.
Subsequently, in the Title Suit No.41/66 filed by Bibekananda Bhowal and his two brothers, the trial companyrt passed a decree in favour of the Bhowals under which the title of the Bhowals to the entire land of 3 Kathas and 9 Chataks was declared.
Pursuant to the companypromise decree the Bhowals handed over possession of an area of 7 x 7 as described in Clause A of the companypromise decree.
It was also companytended by the Bhowals that by reason of the decree obtained by them in their Title Suit number41/1966 as modified by the High Court in first appeal 458/73, they companyld number be evicted from the said land and the building standing thereon in execution of the earlier companypromise decree of 10.5.1965, as they were protected by the subsequent decree between the same parties.
Case No.27/75 companyld number be taken away by the Amending Act of 1976 since the Amending Act was number retrospective.
This misc.
This interim injunction was granted.
This suit was decreed on 31.7.1973.
J. The dispute relates to 3 Kathas 9 Chataks of land situated in a companymercial ares of Silchar in District Cachar.
