Page No.# 1/3 vs Binod Deka And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1711 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010067302021




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

                            Case No. : RSA/61/2021

         SMT. CHAMPA BORO AND ANR.
         W/O- LATE CHITRA RAM DEKA @ CHITRA DEKA, R/O- VILL.- BAREIGAON,
         MOUZA- PUB BASKA, P.S. TAMULPUR, DIST.- BAKSA, (BTAD), ASSAM

         2: AMARJYOTI DEKA
          S/O- LATE CHITRA RAM DEKA @ CHITRA DEKA
          R/O- VILL.- BAREIGAON
          MOUZA- PUB BASKA
          P.S. TAMULPUR
          DIST.- BAKSA
          (BTAD)
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         BINOD DEKA AND 2 ORS.
         S/O- LATE MANGAL RAM DEKA @ MANGALA SARU KOCH, R/O- VILL.-
         SARANGBARI, MOUZA- PUB BASKA, P.S. TAMULPUR, DIST.- BAKSA
         (BTAD), ASSAM

         2:NAYAN DEKA
          S/O- BINOD DEKA
          R/O- VILL.- SARANGBARI
          MOUZA- PUB BASKA
          P.S. TAMULPUR
          DIST.- BAKSA (BTAD)
         ASSAM

         3:PRANJAL DEKA
          S/O- BINOD DEKA
          R/O- VILL.- SARANGBARI
          MOUZA- PUB BASKA
          P.S. TAMULPUR
          DIST.- BAKSA (BTAD)
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/3

             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M K SHARMA

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                              ORDER

27.07.2021

Heard Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

The appeal is admitted for hearing upon the following 5 (five) substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court based on perverse findings which was derived without appreciating the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record in true perspective is sustainable?

2. Whether the learned Courts below is wrong in declaring the Sale Deed dated 02.08.1983 (Ext. 5) as null and void in discarding the operation of Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act over the admission made by the DWs as regards to possession read with the provisions under Regulation 50 and 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 as to the existence of Jamabandi (Ext. 4)?

3. Whether in absence of specific pleadings and admissible proof, the learned First Appellate Court below is wrong in not applying the provisions of Indian Limitation Act while declaring the Sale Deed dated 02.08.1983 (Ext. 5) as null and void?

4. Whether in existence of admission of the DWs and the operation of Page No.# 3/3

Section 90 of Evidence Act followed by existence of Jamabandi (Ext. 4) and presumption of genuineness, the registered Sale Deed dated 02.08.1983 (Ext. 5) frustrates Section 54 of T.P. Act?

5. Whether in absence of a specific prayer for partition of land with metes and bound without challenging the earlier one followed by absence of passing of preliminary decree as well as absence of confirming the laws relating to partition, the second partition is sustainable?

Issue Notice to the respondents.

The appellants shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondents by registered post with A/D and other usual process.

Call for the LCR.

List after 6 (six) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant