9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and it has a number of tea estates in Assam and it owns and manages, amongst others, Dehing Tea Estate at Margherita. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit premises described in the schedule and the same was allotted as an incidence of employment to a permanent worker named Smti Nandi Gore, wife of one Rajesh Gore, who is the elder brother of the defendant. In the month of December, 1981, the defendant, who is not a worker of Dehing Tea Estate, forcibly dispossessed her and started occupying the same unauthorisedly and thus, he had become a trespasser. Despite being asked several times to vacate the suit premises, the defendant did not do so. Though the defendant being a trespasser was otherwise not entitled to a notice, a legal notice dated 09.10.1985 was served on the defendant asking him to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the suit premises immediately on expiry of 31st October, 1985. As defendant did not vacate the suit premises, the suit was filed praying for, amongst others, a decree for khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant with all his belongings and dependants, if any, fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossession on due verification and enquiry, the said land was allotted to him. It was further stated that the house referred to in the schedule of the plaint was constructed by the father of the defendant on the plot of land measuring 6 Bighas 1 Katha covered by Old Dag No.104 (ka) corresponding to Periodic Patta No.1 comprised in Dag No. 59/258. The boundary of the land is also given which is identical to the boundary given by the plaintiff in the schedule to the plaint. 7. On the basis of pleadings, number of issues and additional issues were framed. Having regard to the substantial question of law formulated, Issue nos. 4 and 5 are relevant and they are as follows: "Issue No. 4 - Whether the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land ? Issue No. 5 - Whether the defendant is trespasser into the suit premises?" 8. During trial, plaintiff examined 4(four) witnesses and the defendant examined 2(two) witnesses including himself. PW1 is the Manager of the Tea Estate, PW2 is Smti Nandi Gore, PW3 is a Surveyor who surveyed the area of Dehing Tea Estate where labour quarters are located and PW4 is the Lat Mandal (Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned courts below had omitted to take note of certain portions of the evidence of PW4 and to buttress his submission, he has read the entire evidence of PW4 highlighting the portions which according to him were not taken note of. According to him, evidence of PW4 establishes beyond any doubt that the suit premises is located in his allotted land and therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees, being perverse, are liable to be interfered with. 12. Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that that the respondent/plaintiff was originally having right, title and interest in respect of 61 Bighas 10 Lechas in Dag No. 59 in Tea Periodic Patta No.1 is not at all in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff retained 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land and surrendered 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land. There is no dispute with regard to right, title and interest in respect of 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land. He has submitted that the only issue is whether the suit premises is within 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land or is in the land allotted to the appellant/defendant out of the land surrendered by the respondent/plaintiff. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not know whether there is anybody else in that land. The house where Bhola Gore lives looks like/resembles company quarter. I allotted the ceiling surplus land to the people under whose possession land was and allotted land in Dag Nos. 258 and 259 in the name of Bhola Gore. The land of dag No.259 is the same land of Dag No. 32 (old) falling in the same patta....." 16. It is relevant to note that PW4 had further stated on the basis of Ext. 13 that boundary of Dag No. 59 contains 39 Bighas 2 Kathas and 15 Lechas of land and the ceiling surplus land was shown in Dag Nos. 258, 261, 263, 264, 266 and 574. In cross-examination, PW4 had denied the suggestion that the disputed land did not fall in Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1. He had also denied the suggestion that the disputed house fell in the 21 Bighas 2 Kathas and 15 Lechas of ceiling surplus land. From the portion of the evidence relied upon by Mr. Yadav, which is quoted above, it does not follow that the defendant was allotted land including the disputed building. What is clear from the evidence is that people were allotted ceiling surplus land who had possession therein. It is impermissible to draw an inference as Mr. Yad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
