Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) Declaring that the defendant illegally made himself a party to T.S. No. 38/78, T.A. No. 34/82 and Civil Revision 225/83 and illegally executed the decree in T. Ex. 3/86 and obtained possession of the suit house with the suit land.
(iv) Restoring possession of the suit house and the suit land to the plaintiff."

6. It may be mentioned herein that earlier there was a suit against the plaintiff being T.S. 38/78 and that suit was filed by Asia Khatoon and others for ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit house on the ground of default in the payment of rent and arrear rent as well. That suit was decreed. As against that the plaintiff preferred a T.A. No. 34/82 in the Court of the Assistant District Judqe, Jorhat, During the pendency of that appeal the present appellant, i.e., Shri Brij Ratan Kothari filed an application as respondent alleging that he purchased the portion of the land and house. The appellate court allowed that application and added him as respondent No. 7 treating him as purchaser of the suit land and the house. The appeal filed, by the respondent No. 1 was dismissed and as against that there was Civil Revision being Civil Revision No. 225/83 and that revisions was also dismissed. It must be stated herein that at the time disposal of the revision, the present respondent took time for six months to vacate the house and that was allowed. As he did not vacate the house during the period of six months an execution case being Title Execution case No. 3/ 86 was filed and in execution of that decree the respondent was ejected from the suit house as well as suit land and thereafter this suit was filed by the plaintiff with the prayers as indicated above. The suit was contested by the appellant and the Learned Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has no right and interest to the land and he was a tenant in respect of the house and that tenancy came to an end as soon as he was ejected from that house and also came to a finding that the suit was barred by Section 47 of the C.P.C. As against that a Title Appeal was filed and the Learned Asstt. District Judge took a curious view of the matter. He came to the finding that the suit under appeal is not hit by law of res-judicata in respect of the part of the land measuring 5 lechas other then the part of the holding No. 115 as alleged to have stood and he set aside the finding of the court below on this point. The Learned Asstt. District Judge in deciding that question failed to consider the definition of house as given in the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. 1972. That definition is quoted below :