Heading of Judgment in Original Suit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Assam Schedule VII,Form No.132. High court Form No.(J)2. HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT. District- Jorhat. IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE :::::::::AT JORHAT. Present- Sri K.Dohotia, Civil Judge,Jorhat. Judgment in Title Suit No.33/2011. 1. Smti.Minakshi Barooah, W/o.Sri partha Sarathi Barooah. 2. Sri Aniruddha Baruah, S/o.Sri Partha Sarathi Baruah. 3. Sri Avimanyu Baruah, S/o.Sri Partha Sarathi Baruah. All R/o.‟Jahanabi‟ Melachakar, T.P.Chaliha Road, Sivsagar, Sivasagar, Assam. … PLAINTIFFS. - Versus – 1. Smti.Khiroda kumar Borooah, W/o.Lae Parasuram Barooah, C/o.Biju‟s Boutique, Maniram Dewan Road, Guwahati-781001. 2. Col.Bhaskar Baruah (Retd), S/o.Late Parasuram Barua, Amolapatty, Sibsagar- 785 640. 3. Smti.Bijoy Laxmi Bose, W/o.Samir Bose, R/o.C/o.Biju‟s Boutique, Maniram Dewan Road, Ghy-781001. 4. Smti.Subha laxmi Khan, W/o.Amjad Ali Khan, R/o.Pancheel Park-3, Sadhana Enclave, New Delhi. 5. Smti.Priya laxmi choudhury, W/o.Sri Arun Choudhury, R/o.Shivalik , New Delhi-110017. New Delhi. ….DEFENDANTS. 6. Sri Partha Sarathi Baruah, S/o.Late Parasuram Barua, At present, R/o.Guwahati, C/o.Bijayalaxmi Bose, Biju‟s Boutique, Maniram Dewan Path, Guwahati 781 001. ….PROFORMA DEFENDANT. 2 APPEARANCES:- For the Plaintiff - Smti.M.Dutta, Advocate for Plaintiffs. For Defendants - Sri A.Thakur, Advocate for the Defendants. The suit was coming up for final hearing on -: 26.3.13; 9.4.13; 30.4.13, 4.5.13. Argument heard on :- 01.07.13. Judgment delivered on :- 20.07.13. J U D G M E N T. The suit was originally registered as T.S.50/2012 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sivasagar. Later on, Ld.Civil Judge, Sivasagar transferred the case to this Court vide letter No.CJS/672/2011 dtd.5.8.11 in compliance with the order of the Hon‟ble High court in W.P.(C) 1200/2011 dtd.29.7.11. 1. The suit was for declaration and for injunction. 2. The suit of the plaintiffs‟ in brief is that the plaintiff No.1 is the legally married wife of the proforma defendant No.6 and the said marriage solemnized on 18.7.1976 between the plaintiff No.1 and the proforma defendant No.6 at Guwahati according to Hindu rites and customs. The plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the sons of the proforma defendant No.6 who were born out of the wedlock with the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.2 was born on 12.11.77 while the plaintiff No.3 was born on 11.12.78 and both the plaintiff No.2 and 3 attained majority. After marriage, the plaintiff No.1 started to live in her matrimonial home at Sivasagar with the proforma defendant No.6 as wife and husband in the promises , popularly and commonly codified as „Jahnabi‟ more fully mentioned in schedule D in the plaint (hereinafter called as the “suit premises). 3. Parasuram Barua, the deceased husband of the defendant No.1 and the father of the defendants No.2,3,4,5 and 6 during his life time jointly possessed with his brother Prafulla Chandra Baruah (since deceased), by enjoying their respective right, title and interest thereon, in respect of the premises comprising an area of land 3 measuring 3 kathas 13 Lechas covered by P.P.No.1233 Dag No.4514 of Nagar Mahal Mouza, Sivasagar town which is morefully mentioned in schedule A of the plaint, land measuring 2 bighas 3 kathas 3 Lechas covered by P.P.No.1234 and 4524 of Nagar Mahal Mouza, Sivasagar town as described in the schedule B and an area of land measuring 07 Bighas 02 kathas 13 1/3 Lechas covered by P.P.No.1246 Dag No.4522 and 4521 of Nagarmahal Mouza, Sibsagar Town , more specifically mentioned in the schedule C of the plaint. After the death of Parasuram Baruah, some time during the year 1982, the name of the defendant No.1 in exclusion of other surviving heirs of the deceased Parasuram Barua, impleaded as defendants No.2,3,4 and 5 and the proforma defendant No.6 , was only mutated in the records of rights, for reasons best known to the defendant No.1. The endorsement in the body of the Jamabandi in respect of the land as described in schedule A , reveals that the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated in respect of 04 lochas of Dag No.4514 and P.P.No.1233 out of the total land as shown in schedule A by order dtd.28.5.93 of the Circle Officer, passed in Mutation case No.499 of 1990-91. Likewise, the Jamabandi in respect of the land as detailed in schedule B, reveals that the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated as heir to the deceased Prafulla Chandra Baruah and parasuram Barua, in respect of the land measuring 4 kathas 2 Lechas covered by Dag No.4524 of P.P.No.1234, out of the total land as mentioned in schedule B , by order dtd.3.1.94 passed by the Circle Officer, in M.C.No.469 of 1992- 93. Moreover, the Jamabandi in respect of the land mentioned in the schedule C reveals that the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated in respect of the land measuring 1 Bigha 1 katha 16 Lechas covered by Dag No.4522 of P.P.No.1246 out of the total land as described in schedule C by order dtd.28.5.93 passed by the Circle officer in M.C No.500 of 1990-91. The suit premises described in schedule D is situated over the land covered by Dag No.4522, 4524 and 4514 of P.P.No.1246 of P.P.No.1234 and P.P.No.1233 of Sivasagar Town, Nagarmahal Mouza, Sivasagar only to the extent of area shown above which stood mutated in the records of right in the name of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have further submitted that the 4 exclusive devolution of the land morefully mentioned above , in the name of the defendant No.1 is illegal in absence of any instrument or Will to the effect of such devolution when the other co-heirs are surviving. The plaintiff No.1 suffered her extreme penury at the hand of her husband, the proforma defendant No.6, immediately after their marriage. The proforma defendant NO.6 is ill tampered and also alcoholic and even gambles. The unhappy marital life also witnessed the return of the proforma defendant No.6 at midnight and in the event of any protest raised by the plaintiff No.1, it ended with shower insults, physical torture and attempts made on different occasions to strangulate the plaintiff No.1. The displayed outrageous conduct of the proforma defendant No.6 had made the life of the plaintiff No.1 more miserable multiplied by the silence maintained the other defendants in bailing out the plaintiff No.1 from the sufferings undergone by the plaintiff No.1 at the hand of the proforma defendant No.6. 4. Land mentioned in schedule A, B and C were not effectively partitioned according to law amongst the heirs of lthe deceased Parasuram Baruah and Prafulla ch Baruah, which includes the suit premises mentioned in schedule D. The proforma defendant No.6 abundoned the plaintiffs and started to live outside the jurisdiction of the Court to some other places without disclosing the nature and place of his visit for months together. At the time of institution of the suit, the proforma defendant No.6 is also away from the jurisdiction of the Court and the probable place of his whereabouts could only be ascertained by the plaintiffs to be somewhere at Guwahati. The plaintiff No.1 is virtually deserted by the proforma defendant No.6. The plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against the proforma defendant No.6, but in the event of contesting the claim of the plaintiffs, the proforma defendant No.6 shall be treated as one of the main defendant. The plaintiffs are in possessing the entire suit premises, since neither of the defendants are residing or are in possession of the suit premises . The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit premises is lawful being the wife of the proforma defendant No.6. The status of the plaintiff No.1 as wife of 5 the proforma defendant No.6 is more than a social status involving legal rights and duties and the entitlement of the plaintiff No.1 for maintenance besides security to her personal life is vested in the proforma defendant No.6. The plaintiffs do not have any other means of livelihood nor any separate accommodation to live save and except the suit premises. The plaintiffs had acquired a legal character in view of the fact that the plaintiff No.1 is the legally married wife of the proforma defendant No.6 and plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the sons of plaintiff No.1 and the proforma defendant No.6 and all the plaintiffs had acquired a special interest in respect of the suit premises. The claim of the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit had been terminated, when the defendant No.1 by her letter dtd.4.4.2002 addressed to the plaintiff No.1 demanded the plaintiff No.1 to vacate the suit premises in order to rend out the same to others. 5. The plaintiffs apprehends that if they are forced to vacate the suit premises, they will be homeless.