Heading of Judgment in Original Suit

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.

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. The defendant No.1 is not alone competent under law to alienate the suit premises by way of lease when the interest of defendant Nos.2,3 ,4 and 5 and proforma defendant No.6 cannot be ignored as co-sharers. The interest of the plaintiffs revolves around the legal right of inheritance of proforma defendant No.6 and the said interest of the plaintiffs are still subsisting. The act of the defendant No.1 is prejudicial to the title of the proforma defendant No.6 unless the suit premises is partitioned amongst the surviving heirs of the deceased Parasuram Baruah and Prafulla Chandra Baruah. The defendant No.1 in terms of her letter dtd.4.4.2002 has actually denied the title of the plaintiffs to their legal character and legal right, in respect of the suit property and in the shape of an impediment and obstacle in the way of full enjoyment of the proprietary right of the plaintiffs and the act of the defendant No.1 is hostile to and is an invasion of the legal right of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are in physical control and the dominion over the suit premises have been acquired, under the colour of derivative title with lawful knowledge. The plaintiffs have acquired their lawful possession of the suit premises and are exercising their natural powers in exercise of their domain over the suit premises emanating from their 6 lawful possession and the claim of the plaintiffs seeking protection of their lawful possession is founded in equity. The physical possession of the suit premises, which is lawful, and under threat of destruction by the proposed act of the defendant No.1 as communicated by letter dtd.4.4.2002 to rent out the same, by demanding the vacation of the suit premises. The plaintiffs in order to assert of their relationship with the deceased owner Parasuram Baruah, as a result of which the plaintiffs‟ possession as heirs of the proforma defendant No.6 is likely to be affected, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration to the effect that the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Parasuram Baruah still subsists. The defendant Nos.1,2,3,4 and 5 had actually denied the legal character and the legal right of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises.

6. In the event of suit premises rented out, the plaintiffs shall become homeless when neither of the defendants as well as the proforma defendant No.6 are interested to protect the plaintiffs from the imminent injury. The plaintiffs are left with no other alternative but had been forced to institute the suit seeking declaration in terms of the relief/reliefs as prayed. The plaintiffs are also equally entitled to the preventive and equitable relief in the form of injunction for which a separate petition U/O.39, R.1 & 2 R/W.Sec.151 of C.P.C has been filed.

7. The plaintiffs have also submitted that the cause of action for the suit arose at Sivasagar on and from 3rd week of the month of July,1976 when the plaintiff No.1 came into possession of the suit premises as a house wife being legally married wife of the proforma defendant No.6 and on and from the years 1977-78, the plaintiff No.2 and the plaintiff No.3 were born in the suit premises and the said possession is still continuing, on and from 28.5.93 and 3.1.94, when the name of the defendant No.1 is unlawfully mutated in the record of rights in the exclusion of other succeeding heirs of the deceased Parasuram Baruah and Prafulla Chandra Baruah ; on and from 4.4.02 when the impugned letter was addressed to the plaintiff No.1 by the 7 defendant NO.1 demanding the right to possess by the plaintiffs through proforma defendant No.6.

8. The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement wherein they have stated that there is no cause of action for the suit, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed, the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the suit, the suit is not properly framed or not properly valued nor proper Court fee has been paid and as such, the suit is not legally maintainable, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any injunction of any nature as they could not make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience is also not in favour of plaintiffs. The defendants have admitted the fact of the plaintiff No.1 is the legally married wife of proforma defendant No.6 and the plaintiff No.2 and 3 are his sons, but the plaintiff No.2 was born in VINCENZA GEROSA HOSPITAL, sister of Charity, in Dibrugarh on 13rd day , 1977 and not on 12.11.78 and the plaintiff No.3 was born on 12.5.78 in Borthakur Nursing Home in Guwahati. The defendants denied the fact made in the para 2 of the plaint. The defendants have stated that the land and premises are detailed in schedule A , B, C and were jointly possessed by Late Prafulla ch. Baruah and Late Parasuram Baruah who were brothers. But the houses on the land in schedule D was constructed by Late P.C.Barooah with his own money. On 9.2.86 a family settlement between P.C.Barooah (since deceased) and heirs of his late brother Parasuram Barooah who died in October, 1982 was executed in respect of joint undivided plot of land situated in T.P.Chaliha road, Sivasagar and according to the said mutual family settlement, the suit land came to the share of defendant No.1 Khoroda kumara Barooah. In pursuance of the said family agreement Late P.C.Barooah executed a Will on 11.2.1986 in which the suit land together with the Bungalow, Garage, servant quarters, store rooms etc., i.e., the schedule land of the suit with the Bungalow standing over the plot of land as mentioned in schedule D of the plaint bequeathed to defendant No.1. In the said Will Late P.C.Barooah appointed his eldest son J.K.Barooah as executor of the Will. The said Will was probated in due course by 8

the Ld.District Judge, Sivasagar in Probate Misc.case No.7 of 1988. The Probate case was filed by the executor of the said Will J.K.Barooah. In pursuance of the said Will, the land mentioned in schedule A, B,C were mutated in the name of the defendant No.1 in M.C.No.499 of 1991 on 28.5.93 , Mutation case No.469 of 1992- 93, on 3.1.94, Mutation case No.500 of 1991 on 28.5.93 respectively and the records of right were corrected as per provision of law. The order of mutation were rightly and legally passed. So, the defendants have denied that the defendant No.1 illegally got her name mutated over the suit land to exclusion of defendant Nos.2,3,4,5 and proforma defendant No.6. The contents of para 5 of the plaint is admitted by the defendants while the allegations made in para 6 of the plaint are denied. The defendants have stated that the contents of para 7 of the plaint is created only for the purpose of the suit.

9. In reply to para 8 of the plaint, the answering defendants have stated that whether the properties mentioned in Schedule A,B and C were partitioned or not amongst the heirs of Late Parasuram Barooah and Late Prafulla ch. Barooah has absolutely no relevance, because the plaintiffs have not acquired any sort of title over the property under any law. The plaintiff cannot inherite the properties of Late Parasuram Barooah so long as the defendant No.6 is alive, as inheritance or succession to the property of Late Parasuram Barooah or Late Prafulla ch. Baruah is governed by Dayabhaga school of Hindu Law. They have denied the averments made in para 9 of the plaint. The defendants have stated that neither the defendants are residing nor are in possession of the suit premises is absolutely false and baseless. Regarding the averments made in para 9-A the answering defendants beg to state that the allegation that defendant No.1 and 6 broke the lock of the drawing room of the plaintiff on 3.8.02 and that the plaintiff on her return home found the drawing room opened etc. are absolutely false and baseless. There is no defendant No.7 and so the allegation that “the Magistrate ordered the defendant No.7 and 6 for executing a bond and accordingly defendant No.6 executed a bond” is not correct. The defendant No.1 9 and 5 executed interim bonds till the disposal of the proceeding and vide Judgment dtd.17.5.03, finally, Court dismissed the case as unfounded and unbelievable. The defendants have stated that the plaintiffs have made unauthorized construction. The fact of Work done is denied by the answering defendants. They have admitted the fact of a writ petition was filed by the plaintiff and the defendant NO.1 was made a party in the said writ petition. Knowing about the fact of interim order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court in the writ petition, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed a petition for vacating the interim order dtd.23.7.02. the said petition is not yet disposed of.

10. The defendants have further stated that Late.P.C.Barooah by executing a Will on 11.2.86 bequeathed the land at Ram Sa Hill (Guwahati) to Aniruddha and Abhimanyu (plaintiff No.2 and 3). Moreover there is a Tea Garden known as Kuwaribari Tea Estate near Sapekhati which was taken possession by the plaintiffs , though they do not have title over the entire garden and plaintiffs have been enjoying the entire income from the Tea garden. There is a Bungalow for their use as residence. Hence, the fact narrated by the plaintiffs that they will be homeless, in the event of vacating the suit premises, is totally false. The defendants have denied the averments made in para 11 of the plaint. They have stated that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to act as guardian of defendant No.6 and to espouse his cause in the suit and they have no right to say whether any act of defendant NO.1 is prejudicial to the alleged title of the defendant No.6. they defendant No.6 once again asserts that he does not have title over the suit properties and therefore, the question of partition among the heirs of Parasuram Barooah and Prafulla Barooah does not arise. The defendant No.1 has acquired good title over the property by virtue of the Will which was probated in Probate Misc.case No.7/88. The defendants have denied the averments made in paras 15,16 and 17 of the plaint.

11. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.6 expired , but as the plaintiffs are her legal representatives, the question of impleadment of legal heirs does not arise. On the basis of rival 10 pleadings of the parties, my Ld.predecessor-in-office, framed the following Issues. I S S U E S. a. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit ?

b. Whether the plaintiff is legally married wife of proforma defendant No.6 ?

c. Whether the suit property is ancestral in nature during the life time of Parasuram Baruah and right to inheritance is upon the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 to 5 and proforma defendant No.6 ?

d. Whether the defendant No.1 is within her legal competent to get her name mutated in the records of right to exclude the other ?

e. Whether the plaintiff No.1 has acquired a legal right to inherit the property jointly with her husband proforma defendant No.6 based on her legal character acquired by marriage ?

f. Whether in absence of the partition effected the defendant NO.1 can exclusively enjoy the suit property ?

g. To what relief or reliefs the parties are entitled ?

12. During the trial, plaintiffs filed their evidence on affidavit and exhibited certain documents in support of their contention while the defendants examined two witnesses including the defendant No.1 and exhibited some documents to prove their stand.

DECISION & REASONS THEREOF.

Issue No.2 is taken first for discussion.

13. ISSUE NO.2:- The plaintiffs, in their plaint and in evidence on affidavit have deposed that plaintiff No.1 is the legally married wife of proforma defendant No.1 Late Partha Sarathi Barooah, the son of defendant No.1 and Late Parasuram Barooah. Defendant No.1 in para 2 of her evidence on affidavit has admitted that the plaintiff No.1 is her daughter- in-law, the widow of her deceased lamented son, Partha Sarathi Barooah. Defendant No.1 has also stated that marriage of the plaintiff No.1 (P.W.1) with her son Partha Sarathi Barooah was solemnized against the consent and wishes of the parents and other family members of her son in Guwahati.

14. As I am constrained to hold that plaintiff No.1 is the legally married wife of proforma defendant No.6 (since deceased). This Issue is answered in affirmative and in favour of the plaintiffs.

15. ISSUE NO.3 & 4:- The suit property was not property of Parasuram Barooah alone. It is admitted fact that the suit premises comprising an area of land measuring 3 kathas 13 Lechas covered by Dag No.4522 of P.P.No.1246, part of Dag No.4524 of P.P.No.1234 and over the part of the land covered by Dag No.4514 of P.P.No.1233 of Nagarmahal Mouza jointly possessed by Prafulla Chandra Barooah and Parasuram Barooah , the father of the defendant No.2 to 6 and husband of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have started that the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated over the land described in schedule A vide order dtd.28.5.93 passed by the Circle Officer in Mutation case No.499 of 1990-91, likewise land in schedule B, by order dtd.3.1.94 passed by the Circle officer in Mutation case No.469 of 1992-93, land of schedule C vide order dtd.28.5.93, passed by the Circle officer in Mutation Case 12

No.500 of 1990-91. The land of schedule D also mutated in the records of right in the name of the defendant No.1.

16. The defendant No.1 in her written statement and her evidence on affidavit has stated that the suit property came to her in the year 1986 under a family arrangement and thereafter a Will executed by Sri Prafulla Chandra Barooah in the year 1986 and the said Will was duly probated in Probate Misc.case No.7/1998 in the Court of Ld.District Judge at Sivasagar vide Judgment and order dtd.26.2.1988. and thereafter in the year 1992 and 1993. She got her name duly mutated in the record of rights maintained by the District Collector which appeared in the respective Jamabandi for surveyed villages of Nagar Mahal Mouza, Sivasagar town in respect of P.P.Nos.1233, 1234, 1246.

17. Though the plaintiffs in their plaint have stated that the exclusive devolution of the land described in the schedule of the plaint in the name of 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. As such, burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove her case U/S.101 of the Evidence Act. Under law, the presumption is that the entry in the revenue record is correct. It is for the plaintiffs to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The plaintiffs have not led any evidence to show that mutation of the defendant No.1 alone in the revenue record is incorrect.

18. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in KAREWWA & ORS VS. HUSSENSAB KHANSAHEB WAJANTRI & ORS (AIR 2002 SC 504) held that “ Presumption of the correctness of an entry in the revenue record is a rebuttable presumption. But the Presumption of correctness of any entry in revenue records cannot be rebutted by a statement in the plaint. Under law the presumption is that entry is correct.”

19. On the other hand, the defendant has examined Sri Bhaben Chutia, the Lat Mandal (Revenue Official) of office of the Circle Office at Sivasagar as D.W.1 with records of Mutation case Nos.469/92-93 and 467/91-92. As per order passed by the Circle officer, Sivasagar in these two Mutation cases , name of Khiroda Kumari Baruah W/o.Parasuram Barooah was mutated in the patta No.1233, 1234 and 1246 of Nagarmahal Mouza of Sivasagar. He has stated that Ext.Ka and Ext.Kha are the records of Mutation case No.469/92-93 and 467/91-92 respectively. D.W.1 , the Lat Mandal has further stated that Mutation case No.469/92-93 was filed on the basis of Probate issued in the Court of District Judge, Sivasagar in Probate Case No.7/1998. He has further stated that original Probate is in the record. Ext.Ga is the said Probate.

20. From the above discussion, it reveals that on the strength of Probate , the suit land was mutated in the name of the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the said land. Defendant No.1 may dispose of the property at her pleasure. As the suit property is the absolute property of defendant No.1 and it does not partake the character of joint family property, right of inheritance is not available to the plaintiffs and other defendants. In view of above discussion, the Issue Nos.3 and 4 are decided against the plaintiffs.

21. ISSUE NO.5:- I have already decided in the foregoing Issues that the suit property was gifted to the defendant No.1 by Prafulla Chandra Barooah through an Will. The Will was duly probated in Probate Misc.case No.7/1998 in the Court of Ld.district Judge, Sivasagar. On the basis of the Probate (Ext.ga), name of the defendant No.1 was mutated on the suit land. The same has been noted in the revenue records. Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit property. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in MARABASAPPA (Dead) BY LRS. AND OTHERS versus NINGAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS 14

(2011) 9 SCC 451, held that “ Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 clearly mandates that any property of a female Hindu is her absolute property and she, therefore, has full ownership. The Explanation to sub- section (1) further clarifies that a Hindu woman has full ownership over any property that she has acquired on her own or as stridhana. As a consequence, she may dispose of the same as per her wish, and that the same shall not be treated as a part of the joint Hindu family property.”

22. As such, the plaintiff No.1 has no right to inherit the property. This Issue is answered in negative and in favour of the defendant No.1.

23. ISSUE NO.6:- As the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit land and premises U/S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, this property cannot be brought into the hotchpotch of the joint family property and would not be available for partition among the members of joint family since it does not partake the character of joint family property. As such, I am constrained to hold that defendant No.1 can exclusively enjoy the suit property.

This Issue is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the defendant No.1.

24. ISSUENO.1:- In view of the decision arrived at in Issue Nos.4,5 & in 6, I hold that there is no cause of action for the suit.

25. ISSUE NO.7:- From the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief.

O R D E R.

The plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief. The suit is dismissed on contest. Parties shall bear their own costs. 15

Prepare a decree accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 20th day of July,2013.

CIVIL JUDGE::JORHAT.

APPENDIX.

1. Witnesses examined by plaintiffs- P.W.1- Minakshi Barooah. P.W.2- Aniruddha Barooah. P.W.3- Abhimanye Barooah. 2. Witnesses examined by Defendants- D.W.1- Bhuban chutia, D.W.2- Khiroda kumar Barooah.

Dictated & corrected by me:-

( Sri K.Dohotia ) CIVIL JUDGE JORHAT Civil Judge,Jorhat.

Transcribed & typed by- Nirju R. Gogoi, Stenographer.