A decree for issuing precept to the Nalbari Municipal Board for mutating the name of the plaintiff on holding No.
121 in the records of Nalbari Municipality.
If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the rent legally due by the defendant No.
3 by Prafulla Kalita.
In the said suit the companytesting respondents herein inter alia raised a plea of adverse possession alleging That right of adverse possession had accrued upon the predecessor interest, and these defendant, as these defendants and their predecessor interest, had their peaceful and uninterrupted possession for more than 40 years, adversely to the interest of defendant No.
3 to pay rent to him which was denied.
10, 11 12 transferred their right, title and interest in old holding No.
The Trial Court decreed the said suit whereagainst Jagdish Kalita, Dipak Kalita and the Secretary of the Cooperative Society preferred appeal in the Court of District Judge, Nalbari which was marked as T.A. No.
The suit is hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
10, 11, 12 and their predecessor interest.
69 of 1986.
Upon the death of Md. Sadagar Sheikh, however, his sons got the lands mutated in their favour in mutation case No.
522 was sold and portion of holding No.
The defendant No.
Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant No.
A decree may also be passed against the defendant No.
4 for ejectment from the suit house by removing its goods and articles therefrom and also a decree for mesne profit of Rs.
BACKGROUND FACT Md. Sadagar Sheikh was the original owner of the suit premises.
The companyt of the suit may be decreed against the companytesting defendants.
But he companyld number swim across and then he sank.
83 of 1978 in the Court of Munsif which was dismissed.
Prafulla Kalita, son of Gayaram Kalita, allegedly, amalgamated both the said holdings and got them registered in his name as holding No.
The first set being defendants No.
Holding No.
On the other hand, if numberpartition by meets and bounds took place, the respondents herein were bound to plead and prove ouster of the plaintiff and or his predecessors interest from the land in question.
523 to the appellant herein on receipt of the companysideration of a sum of Rs.
523 including the house to the appellant for valuable companysideration.
As regard Issue No.
3 did number pay rent to the appellant, he filed a money suit for recovery of arrears of rent being No.
7, 8 9 transferred their possessory rights in holding No.
On a second appeal filed by the appellant herein the High Court by its judgment and decree dated 20th May, 1991 dismissed the same holding The learned District Judge having found that Prafulla did number share the rent with prof.
3 herein.
On or about 24.9.1977, the legal representatives of Md. Sadagar Sheikh, being defendant Nos.
The plaintiff dared to plunge in the cross currents of legal intricacies.
414/70 71 in terms of an order of the Sub Divisional Officer of the Nalbari Municipality.
By reason of a registered deed of partition dated 1.12.1938, the structures standing on the land in suit being holding Nos.522 and 523 of the Nalbari Municipality were divided into half and half, each measuring 5 lechas.
1, 2, 3, 5 6 were the legal heirs and representatives of late Prafulla Kalita.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Although the name of the plaintiff was initially mutated in Nalbari Municipality, the same was cancelled by an order dated 26.9.1977.
In the said suit, there were three sets of defendants.
Whether the suit land together with the house was originally gifted by late Gaya Ram and Kashi Ram to late Prafulla Kalita as alleged in the W.S.?
4 Respondent number3 herein was a companyperative society which was inducted as a tenant by Prafulla Kalita.
10, 11 12 were the legal heirs and representatives of late Md. Sadagar Sheikh.
7, 8 9 were the legal heirs and representatives of late Kashi Ram Kalita and the third set being defendants No.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was also dismissed.
The premises in suit, thus, owned and possessed by the said Gayaram Kalita and Kashiram Kalita, who were brothers.
121 kha the suit house.
Defendants 7, 8 and 9 it cannot be said that these defendants were still companysharers.
Any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled to may also be decreed.
523 was leased out in favour of the respondent No.
The learned Trial Court in view of the rival companytentions aforesaid, inter alia, framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land as well as the house thereon?
5000/ .
As the respondent No.
4350.00 against defendant No.
In view of the fact that the name of the appellant was number ultimately mutated in the records of the Municipality as also in view of dismissal of the said money suit, the suit was filed wherein the appellant prayed for the following reliefs For a decree for declaration of right, title and interest of plaintiff over the suit land and the house standing thereon.
The first appeallate Court upon companysideration of the materials on record held that the appellants therein companyld number prove the factum of oral gift.
The second set being defendants No.
For the said purpose, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents herein to specifically plead and prove as to since when their possession became adverse to the other companysharers.
The taxes deposited by the plaintiff were directed to be refunded.
Upon purchase of the suit premises in the manner aforementioned, the appellant herein called upon the respondent No.
By reason of a registered deed of sale dated 28.11.1972, the defendants Nos.
He transferred the same to Gayaram Kalita and Kashiram Kalita.
Hence all these three issues are decided against the plaintiff.
B. SINHA, J This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 20.5.1991 passed by Gauhati High Court dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
They further set up a plea that the suit house was number actually partitioned by metes and bounds by and between the Kalita brothers number separate physical possession thereof was effected and in fact Kashiram Kalita and Gayaram Kalita orally gifted the said plot to Prafulla Kalita and since then he had been in exclusive and peaceful possession thereof as owner.
