Page No.# 1/3 vs Nomita Dam
2021 Latest Caselaw 244 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010108492019




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1682/2019

         KHAGEN KOIRY @ CHOUDHURY AND 4 ORS.
         S/O- LATE KALI PRASAD KOIRY, R/O- BIR CHILARAY PATH, TILAPARA,
         GOALPARA TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM

         2: JUGAL KOIRY
          S/O- LATE KALI PRASAD KOIRY
          R/O- BIR CHILARAY PATH
         TILAPARA
          GOALPARA TOWN
          P.O.
          P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA
         ASSAM

         3: LILA KOIRY
         W/O- LATE SITARAM KOIRY
          R/O- BIR CHILARAY PATH
         TILAPARA
          GOALPARA TOWN
          P.O.
          P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA
         ASSAM

         4: NIRANJAN KOIRY
          S/O- LATE KALI PRASAD KOIRY
          R/O- BIR CHILARAY PATH
         TILAPARA
          GOALPARA TOWN
          P.O.
          P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA
         ASSAM

         5: RAJESH KOIRY
          S/O- LATE KALI PRASAD KOIRY
          R/O- BIR CHILARAY PATH
                                                                     Page No.# 2/3

             TILAPARA
             GOALPARA TOWN
             P.O.
             P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA
             ASSA

            VERSUS

            NOMITA DAM
            W/O- BHABESWAR DAM, D/O- KALI PRASAD KOIRY, R/O- NO. 1 COLONY
            (ASHOK NAGAR), P.O. AND P.S. GOALPARA, DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA




             Linked Case :

            KHAGEN KOIRY @ CHOUDHURY AND 4 ORS



             VERSUS

            NOMITA DAM



            ------------
            Advocate for :
            Advocate for : appearing for NOMITA DAM


                                   BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                           ORDER

Date : 27.01.2021

Both sides are duly represented.

Page No.# 3/3

It appears from the statements made at the Bar that respondent herein is the plaintiff in T.S. No.89/2011, which was decreed on 06.02.2016, by which preliminary decree was ordered to be prepared. Thereafter, the appellant has preferred T.A. No.8/2016, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2017, thereby determining that the parties would have equal share, however, affirming that the respondent- plaintiff was entitled to decree of partition. It appears as per order dated 14.12.2018 passed in T.S. No.89/2011 that the respondent was present and the appellants were absent without steps and on receipt of Commissioner's report as per preliminary decree, the decree holder had no objection and therefore, final decree was ordered to be prepared on the basis of Commissioner's report within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of order. As per order dated 17.12.2018, final decree had been prepared and signed under the seal of the Court.

Accordingly, both sides are to make their respective submissions on the maintainability of this appeal in the present form as well as on the legal status of the parties to the appeal in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had already taken over the possession of her share of property and that she had already disposed of her share by selling/ transferring her share of the land prior to the institution of the connected appeal.

List after 2 (two) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant