Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1645 Gua
Judgement Date : 12 July, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010071382021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/65/2021
M/S GUTTU AND COMPANY AND ANR.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JANIGANJ BAZAR, SILCHAR IN THE
DISTRICT OF CACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
MD. SALE AHMED AND 4 ORS.
S/O HAJI ABDUL MANAF, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT VILLAGE
DOLUGANG UNDER HARINAGAR G.P. AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NAPITCHERRA UNDER KALINAGAR JUNGLE BLOCK 2, PO- KALINAGAR,
DIST. KARIMGANJ
2:KALAM UDDIN
S/O HAJI ABDUL MANAF
HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT VILLAGE DOLUGANG UNDER
HARINAGAR G.P. AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NAPITCHERRA UNDER
KALINAGAR JUNGLE BLOCK 2
PO- KALINAGAR
DIST. KARIMGANJ
3:MONIR UDDIN
S/O HAJI ABDUL MANAF
HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT VILLAGE DOLUGANG UNDER
HARINAGAR G.P. AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NAPITCHERRA UNDER
KALINAGAR JUNGLE BLOCK 2
PO- KALINAGAR
DIST. KARIMGANJ
4:MOJIR UDDIN
S/O HAJI ABDUL MANAF
HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT VILLAGE DOLUGANG UNDER
Page No.# 2/3
HARINAGAR G.P. AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NAPITCHERRA UNDER
KALINAGAR JUNGLE BLOCK 2
PO- KALINAGAR
DIST. KARIMGANJ
5:AMIR UDDIN
S/O HAJI ABDUL MANAF
HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT VILLAGE DOLUGANG UNDER
HARINAGAR G.P. AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NAPITCHERRA UNDER
KALINAGAR JUNGLE BLOCK 2
PO- KALINAGAR
DIST. KARIMGAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G SAHEWALLA
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : --
Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewala, assisted by Mr. M. Sahewala, learned counsel for the appellant. This an second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC.
The appeal is admitted for hearing upon the following substantial question of law:
1. Whether the learned appellant court below was correct in deciding issue no. 3 affirmative holding State a of Assam as a necessary party to the suit although the defendant respondents failed to prove acquisition of the suit land as ceiling surplus and also failed to show any settlement as per provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act 1956 for the alleged tenants?
2. Whether the appellate court below was right in holding that inspite of being admitted by the defendants/respondents regarding the sale of the Kalinagar Tea Estate By Bharat Samiti Limited to Sriram Tea Company, the Plaintiff must prove the sale accordingly reversing the judgment of the trial Court?
3. Whether the learned appellate court below was right in holding that the sale deed i.e Page No.# 3/3
exhibit 3 having not contained the boundary description or dag no/pata no of the land of the plaintiff's right cannot be declared inspite of the admission the defendant respondent that land of dag no. 5 is a part of Kalinagar Tea Estate originally belonging to Bharat Samiti Limited from whom the predecessor in interest of the respondents took lease from Bharat Samiti Ltd and as such the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside and quashed.
Issue notice to the respondents. Appellant shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondents by registered post with A/D as well as by usual process.
Call for the LCR.
List the matter after four weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!