CRP 342/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A C UPADHYAYA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order, dated 07.05.2001, passed in Title Suit No. 54/2005, whereby learned Civil Judge No. I I, Kamrup, Guwahati, has dismissed the plaintiff-petitioner’s suit, instituted, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking, inter alia, recovery of kha s possession of the suit land and permanent injunction restraining and prohibiti ng the defendants-opposite party from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff-petit ioner from the suit land and the houses standing thereon. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner. 3. The respective cases of the parties to the suit, as correctly noted by t he learned trial Court, are as under: Plaintiff’s’ Case 2. Plaintiff came to occupy the suit land in the year 1963. Thereafter, sta ge by stage, he constructed one Assam Type House over the land. A brick boundary wall was also erected by the plaintiff. Some of the rooms of that house were le t out on rent to different persons namely Nagen Deka, Dipak Deka and Raju Das. 3. The plaintiff claimed that Since the year 1963, on various occasions, th e defendants have been disturbing his possession over the suit land and also bee n trying to evict him there from. On 17/12/2004 the defendants, claimed to be th e sons of the suit land asked the plaintiff to vacate the land. Thereafter, on 2 1/12/2004 the said defendants again tried to forcefully evict the plaintiff from the suit land. Therefore, on 22/12/2004, the plaintiff filed a case under Secti on 144 of the Cr. P.C. 4. On 05/02/2005, the plaintiff and his family went to Morigaon. They retu rned on 10/02/2005. They found that the defendants have illegally occupied the e ntire suit land along with the premises standing thereon. They also found that t heir tenants have also been already evicted from the tenanted premises. The plai ntiff stated that he got the information that on 08/02/2005 the defendants have illegally occupied the suit land and after breaking the lock of his house they e ntered into the same and occupied it. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit on 15/0 2/2005. Defendant’s Case 5. The defendants Gajen Deka and Sarat Deka (since deceased) filed a common written statement. The defendants Prabal Deka and Hemanta Kalita filed another common written statement along with a counter ’claim for a decree for declaratio n and right, title and interest and for permanent injunction. On 18/06/2006, thi s court passed a direction under Order 8 Rule 6 e of the Cf’C for separate regis tration of the counter claim as another title suit. Case of Gajen Deka and Sarat Deka 6. They denied the entire case of the plaintiff. These two defendants claim ed that their father Late Naren Deka was the owner of the suit land. They stated that the house situated over the suit land was built by Late Naren Deka. The de fendants disclosed that in the year 1963 the plaintiff approached Late Naren Dek a for allowing him temporarily stay in the house situated over the suit land. Na ren Deka allowed the plaintiff to stay in the house situated ’Over the suit land because the plaintiff was his nephew. The defendants stated that Naren Deka all owed the plaintiff to stay in the house on a condition that he shall have to vac ate the house as and when required and demanded by Late Naren Deka. Initially, t here was no electricity connection in that house and for that matter, the plaint iff approached Late Naren Deka for getting electricity. Naren Deka reportedly in structed the plaintiff to procure the electricity connection to the house. But, the plaintiff surreptitiously procured the electricity connection in his name in stead of the Name of Naren Deka. The plaintiff is the son of the brother of Late Naren Deka. Hence, Naren Deka never had any suspicion about the conduct of the plaintiff taking advantage of that situation the plaintiff also got the house as sessed by the municipal authorities in his name. 7. After the demise of Naren Deka, in the year 1994, the pr esent two defendants inherited the suit land and the house thereon. efendants ll eged that the plaintiff has let out some portions of that house to some tenants without the permission of Late Naren . Deka. 8. The defendants disclosed that on 06/06/2004, they had an altercation with the plaintiff and after that the plaintiff left the suit land taking his belongings with him. The plaintiff reportedly asked the tenant to att orn to the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants Nagen Deka and Raju Das starte d paying house rents to the present defendants. 9. The defendants stated that in the year 2004 they sold th e suit land to Prabal Deka and Hemanta Kalita (defendant No.3 and 4) by executio n of a registered sale deed dated 30/12/2004. They also stated that the defendan ts No.3 and 4 have taken possession of the suit land on 07/02/205. Case of the defendants Prabal Deka and Hemanta Kalita 10. These two defendants supported the case of the other two defenda nts. They stated that at the time of purchasing the suit land there were some te nants over there, but the tenants had vacated the suit land on 06/02/2005. There after, on 07/02/2005, they were delivered vacant possession of the suit land. Fo r these reasons the defendants prayed for right, title and interest over the sui t land. 11. *** *** *** 12. In course of trial, the plaintiff examined two witnesses. The de fendants, on the other hand, examined 8 witnesses. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. I have also gone through the materials ava ilable in the case record. I have taken up the issues for discussions and decisi ons in their given order. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties concerned, altogether six i ssues were framed by the learned trial Court for determination in the suit, the issues being, in brief, thus: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and on facts ? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 3. Whether the plaintiff was allowed to occupy the suit premises by late Na rendra Nath Deka as permissive occupier ? 4. Whether the plaintiff was forcibly evicted by the defendants on 08.02.20 05 ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for recovery of possessi on of the suit premises and permanent injunction as prayed for ? 6. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to ? 5. In support of their respective cases, both sides adduced evidence, the p laintiff having examined two witnesses including his ownself and the defendants having examined eight witnesses. 6. On the basis of the findings, reached by the learned trial Court, primar ily, on issue No. 4, (namely, Whether the plaintiff was forcibly evicted by the defendants on 08.02.2005 ?), the suit stands dismissed, the findings of the Cour t being to the effect that the burden of proof rested on the plaintiff, but the plaintiff’s evidence was not supported by his witness, Rajen Sharma, and there i s, as a matter of fact, no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was forcibly evi cted from the suit land on 08.02.2005 and that the sole evidence of the plaintif f, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be considered to be so sacrosanct as would entitle the plaintiff, without any supporting evidence, to the reliefs, w hich the plaintiff had claimed. 7. Before entering into the merit of this revision, it needs to be noted th at the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner being a suit for recovery of possession on the ground of his alleged forcible dispossession from the suit land and the h ouses standing thereon, this Court’s interference, in this revision, is possible only if this Court finds that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on no evidence, or wholly against the weight of the evidence on record and/or c ontrary to law. If, therefore, the findings of the Court are based on evidence and the view, taken by the learned trial Court, is not such a view, which has to be treated as a wholly irrational view, the findings cannot be interfered with. 8. While considering the correctness or otherwise of the findings reached, as indicated above, it may be noted that the plaintiff claimed, in his evidence, that he had constructed a thatched house on the suit land and he used to reside there, that in the year 1967, he had reconstructed and renovated the thatched h ouse into an Assam-type house with C.I. sheet roofing and a verandah, that his h ouse consisted of three rooms and, later on, the said adjacent verandah was also converted into a room and, as such, there were, altogether, five rooms in the h ouse. The plaintiff also claimed that he had constructed latrine, bathroom and another chali house consisting of two rooms over the suit land, that he had also constructed boundary wall around the suit land, that the suit land and the hous es, standing thereon, had been duly assessed by the Guwahati Municipal Corporati on, in the year 1972, under Holding No. 275 of Ward No. XIV, re-numbered as Hold ing No. 66 of Ward No. 36(B), in the plaintiff’s name and that he had obtained e lectricity connection into the house in his name, that he had been paying munici pal and other taxes regularly and that he had let out three rooms of the said As sam-type house and the chali house to three different tenants, namely, Nagen Dek a, Deepak Deka and Sri Raju Das. The plaintiff further claimed that since the y ear 1963, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had been trying to evict and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and, in fact, they had, in this regard, made sever al attempts, but did not succeed due to resistance offered, and objections raise d, by the plaintiff, that, on 17.12.2004, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, along with some other people, came to the house of the plaintiff and, claiming themselves as owner and title holder of the suit land, threatened the plaintiff and his fam ily members and asked them to vacate the land, that again, on 21.12.2004, defend ant Nos. 1 and 2 came to the plaintiff’s house with some more anti-social elemen ts and attempted to forcibly evict and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit la nd and house, but, on the neighbouring people having gathered there, the defenda nts left the place threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences if the plain tiff did not vacate the land, that on 05.02.2005, the plaintiff, along with the members of his family, left for Morigaon keeping his house under lock and key an d when they returned on 10.02.2005, they found that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 h ad illegally and forcibly occupied the plaintiff’s land and house by breaking th e lock put by the plaintiff, that the defendants had also evicted the tenants fr om the plaintiff’s house and that, upon enquiry made by the plaintiff, he came t o know that, on 08.02.2005, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had illegally entered int o the premises of the plaintiff and taken away the plaintiff’s belongings by bre aking the lock put by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that when he went to the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and asked them to vacate the plaintiff’s premises an d to return the plaintiff’s belongings, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 warned him no t to enter into the said premises in future and that, having no alternative, the plaintiff lodged an FIR, at the Chandmari Police Station, on 10.02.2005. The p laintiff also stated, in his evidence, that apprehending danger to his life, he filed, on 22.12.2004, before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Guw ahati, an application for drawing of a proceeding under Section 144 of the CrPC, against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, with a prayer to restrain the defendants fr om entering into the plaintiff’s said land and premises and from disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the said land and house, that the Additiona l Deputy Commissioner, acting upon the plaintiff’s said application, directed th e Chandmari Police Station to make enquiry and submit a report. 9. In his cross-examination too, the plaintiff asserted to the effect that though he had constructed a thatched house on the suit land, he had not taken an y permission for construction of the house over the suit land nor did he obtain permission, while converting the said thatched house into a house with CI sheet roofing, that he had not taken permission for raising boundary wall, that Late N aren Deka (father of the defendant Gajen Deka) used to often visit the suit land in connection with his business, that it is not a fact that the thatched house had been constructed by Late Naren Deka and he (the plaintiff) was allowed to st ay in the house. The plaintiff denied the fact that contrary to the instruction s given by Late Naren Deka (since deceased), the plaintiff got the house, standi ng on the suit land, assessed, in his own name by municipality and also obtained electrical connection thereto. 10. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff also denied the suggestion of th e defendants that on 06.06.2004, he had vacated the suit premises by taking all his belongings, that he had instructed the tenants, namely, Nagen Deka, Dipak De ka and Raju Deka, to pay monthly rent of the tenanted house to the defendants, G ajen and Sarat. The plaintiff further denied the suggestion that the suit premi ses had been in possession of Late Naren Deka and that the plaintiff had been oc cupying the suit land under Late Naren Deka. 11. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined only one witness, namely, Rajen Sarma. However, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff’s witness, R ajen Sarma, had entirely supported, in his examination-in-chief, the plaintiff’s case, this witness admitted, in his cross-examination, that he does not know to whom the suit land belongs, that he does not know in which year the house was c onstructed, that the does not know in which year the verandah was constructed an d/or when the latrine, bathroom and/or the chali house were constructed on the s uit land. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff’s witness admits that he does not even know Gajen Deka and Sarat Deka, that he does not know the defendants even b y their face and that he would not even be able to recognize them. In fact, in his cross-examination, the plaintiff’s witness broke down completely and admitte d that he does not know as to who had constructed the house, bathroom, the chali house and latrine on the suit land and that it was the plaintiff, who had told him that the plaintiff had three tenants on his land, but he (the witness) does not know as to how many members the plaintiff had in his family nor does he kno w as to when the tenants had occupied the suit house as the tenants of the plain tiff, that he does not even remember as to when he had last visited the suit lan d. The plaintiff’s witness, finally, admitted that he cannot say even the date on which the defendants had entered into the suit premises. 12. In the backdrop of the evidence on record, as indicated above, the learn ed trial Court concluded that the plaintiff’s witness completely failed to suppo rt the case of the plaintiff and the nature of the case being what it is, the pl aintiff’s sole evidence, in the absence of any credible corroboration coming fro m any other quarter, cannot be wholly relied upon, particularly, when the defend ants also claim ownership over the suit land and also possession thereof. 13. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court do es not find that the findings, reached by the learned trial Court, are perverse and/or warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdic tion. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity, legal or factual, in the impug ned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner. 14. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision is not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 15. No order as to costs.