Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Gopal Das on 15 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010122252012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/415/2012
ON THE DEATH OF ANANTA PATHAK HIS LEGAL HEIRS MAHENDRA
MOHAN PATHAK and 7 ORS.
SON
2: BHABESH PATHAK
SON
3: RAJESH PATHAK
SON
4: RENUKA HALOI
DAUGHTER
5: CHITRA PATHAK
DAUGHTER
6: LATIKA PATHAK
DAUGHTER
7: DALIMI PATHAK
DAUGHTER
8: JUPITARA PATHAK
DAUGHTER
ALL ARE R/O VILL/PO. BAIRAGI
PS. PATACHARKUCHI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSA
Page No.# 2/5
VERSUS
GOPAL DAS
S/O LT. DASO RAM DAS, VILL. NAKHARA, PO. TIHU, PS. TIHU, MOUZA-
TIHU, DIST. NALBARI, PIN-781371
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D MAZUMDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : N BHARALI
Linked Case : CRP/416/2012
ON THE DEATH OF ANANTA PATHAK HIS LEGAL HEIRS MAHENDRA
MOHAN PATHAK and 7 ORS.
SON.
2: BHABESH PATHAK
SON
3: RAJESH PATHAK
SON
4: RENUKA HALOI
DAUGHTER
5: CHITRA PATHAK
DAUGHTER
6: LATIKA PATHAK
DAUGHTER
7: DALIMI PATHAK
DAUGHTER
Page No.# 3/5
8: JUPITARA PATHAK
DAUGHTER
ALL ARE R/O VILL/PO. BAIRAGI
PS. PATACHARKUCHI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
VERSUS
AMARENDRA THAKURIA
S/O LT. PHATICK THAKURIA
VILL. NAKHARA
PO. TIHU
PS. TIHU
MOUZA-TIHU
DIST. NALBARI
PIN-781371
------------
Advocate for : MR. S BISWAS
Advocate for : MS.J BEGUM appearing for AMARENDRA THAKURIA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
15.11.2021
Heard Mr. P Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have noticed that in
paragraph 3 of the plaint, the stand of the petitioner plaintiff is that there was a
tenancy arrangement of the plaintiff with the defendant Gopal Das at a monthly
rate of Rs.350/-, where the defendant has started a shoe store in the name of
Pradip Shoe Store. The defendant takes the stand that there was a permanent
tenancy between the plaintiff and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant,
Page No.# 4/5
namely, Late Dasa Ram Das and the defendant Gopal Das inherited such
tenancy agreement.
The trial court in its judgment dated 24.09.2008 proceeded on the premises
that there was a tenancy with the defendant Gopal Das at a monthly rate of
Rs.350/- where the tenant Gopal Das was involved in a cloth business as stated
in the plaint. The said discrepancy is of some relevance from the point of view
that in the written statement the defendant has taken a stand that in another
portion of the suit land or of which the suit land is a part of there is a shoe store
by one Phatik Chandra Thakuria. From such point of view, there is a relevance
as to in what business the defendant Gopal Das was involved.
The defendant in the appeal before the First Appellate Court has taken the
stand that the other legal heirs of Dasa Ram Das are necessary parties and,
therefore, the suit is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in that manner. The issues No.4 and 5
before the learned trial court pertain to whether there is a landlord and tenant
relationship between the plaintiff and the tenant i.e., Gopal Das. In paragraph 2
of the discussion of the trial court as regards the issues No. 4 and 5, the learned
Court begins with the sentence that the plaintiff claims that Late Dasa Ram Das
father of the defendant was his tenant and, accordingly, proceeded to decide
the suit. We would like the plaintiff to point out as to what evidence were led
and as to with whom the tenancy was created i.e. with the defendant or his
predecessor-in-interest Late Dasa Ram Das and what evidences were produced
by the plaintiff to substantiate his claim for tenancy.
Call for further hearing tomorrow i.e. 16.11.2021.
Page No.# 5/5
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
