Page No.# 1/3 vs Rabindra Nath Kalita And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 964 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010294092019




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

                                  Case No. : RSA/115/2020

            ASEEM KUMAR CHOUDHURY
            S/O- LATE TARUN CHANDRA CHOUDHURY, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
            LOWER MOWPREM, SABITA BHAWAN, P.O. AND P.S. SHILLONG-2,
            MEGHALAYA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. FA-101, MEGHMALHAR
            APARTMENT, A.K. AZAD ROAD, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, GUWAHATI-
            781008.



            VERSUS

            RABINDRA NATH KALITA AND 2 ORS.
            S/O- BHABENDRA NATH KALITA, RESIDENT OF VILL.- HELONA, P.S.
            PATTACHARKUCHI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.

            2:GUNUWA MAZI
             S/O- LATE GANESH MAZI
             P.O. AND P.S. NELI
             DIST.- MORIGAON
            ASSAM.

            3:SMTI. MAINA MAZI
             D/O- LATE GANESH MAZI
             C/O- GUNUWA MAZI
             P.O. AND P.S. NELI
             DIST.- MORIGAON
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B D DAS

Advocate for the Respondent :
                                                                                     Page No.# 2/3



                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                             ORDER

Date : 12.03.2021

Heard the learned counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmick, appearing for the appellant.

The appeal is admitted for hearing upon the following substantial questions of law:

i. Whether the appellate judgment is bad in law for its failure to comply with the provisions of law as laid down in the Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C.

ii. Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the execution of Sale Deed No. 494/1988 has not been proved is incorrect in as much as the legality and validity of similar sale deeds sold by the same vendor and on the strength of the same Power of Attorney dated 28.01.1987 has been upheld by this Hon'ble Court vide Judgment dated 26.05.2009 in WP(C) No. 4301 and 4534 of 2006?

iii. Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the Appellant had failed to produce the original deed of the Power of Attorney dated 28.01.1987 or had lead any evidence to prove that it was genuinely executed by the Proforma Defendants in favour of Shri Dhananjoy Singh is wrong and a perverse finding in view of the fact that the then Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide order dated 18.09.2003 in Misc.Case No. 73 of 2003 had vacated the ex-parte order passed in Title Suit No. 40 of 2000 to that effect?

iv. Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the Appellant had not taken any steps to proof that Power of Attorney vide deed No. 183 dated 28.01.1987 is wrong and incorrect in view of the order dated 04.01.2019 that inspite of the order dated 20.06.2017 Page No.# 3/3

that document was not produced and also in view of the fact that on 04.02.2019 the Senior Sub-Registrar, Kamrup (M) had sent an official who had brought the volume book which consists of the recitals of the registered Power of Attorney vide deed no. 183 dated 28.01.1987 and he was examined the CW1 and the Xerox copy of the relevant page of the volume book was exhibited.

Issue notice to the respondents.

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

List this matter after 4 (four) weeks, on a date to be fixed by the Office.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant