4: Jonali Parbin vs Page No.# 2/3
2021 Latest Caselaw 2927 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010094882019




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

                             Case No. : CRP/65/2019

         ON DEATH OF JAFAR IQBAL HUSSAIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS - AMELA
         KHATUN AND 3 ORS.
         BARPETA

         1.1: AMELA KHATUN
          R/O. VILL. HABI RADHAKUCHI
          MOUZA- NAGAON
          P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA
         ASSAM
          PIN-781301.

         1.2: ASHIK IQBAL HUSSAIN
          R/O. VILL. HABI RADHAKUCHI
          MOUZA- NAGAON
          P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA
         ASSAM
          PIN-781301.

         1.3: AKIP MALLIK
          R/O. VILL. HABI RADHAKUCHI
          MOUZA- NAGAON
          P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA
         ASSAM
          PIN-781301.

         1.4: JONALI PARBIN
          (BEING MINOR IS REP. BY PETITIONER NO.1) R/O. VILL. HABI
         RADHAKUCHI
          MOUZA- NAGAON
          P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA
         ASSAM
          PIN-781301

         VERSUS
                                                                       Page No.# 2/3


             KALU MIAH AND ANR.
             S/O. LT. HUSSAIN ALI, R/O. VILL. HABI RADHAKUCHI, MOUZA- NAGAON,
             P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM-781301.

             2:NUR MAHAMMAD

             S/O. LT. HUSSAIN ALI
             R/O. VILL. HABI RADHAKUCHI
             MOUZA- NAGAON
             P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA
             ASSAM-781301

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B C DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I CHOUDHURY

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH order

17.11.2021

Heard Ms. I Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondents.

This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 passed by the court of the Munisif No. 1, Barpeta in Title Suit No. 295/2013 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner herein under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners could not substantiate that on 25.04.2013 he was dispossessed from the suit land. I have perused the judgment passed by the trial court and on perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court it is apparent that the trial court after taking into account the Page No.# 3/3

evidence on record passed the impugned judgment and decree holding that the petitioner/ plaintiff had failed to substantiate that on 25.04.2013 he was dispossessed. The question as regards the date on which the petitioner was dispossessed is question of fact unless and until there is any jurisdictional error the interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not called for. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate on what basis the finding of the fact of the court below that the petitioner failed to substantiate that on 25.04.2013 he was dispossessed I don't see any cause for interference with the impugned judgment and decree.

Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. The dismissal of the instant petition shall not preclude the petitioner for initiating any proceeding seeking recovery of possession as well as title as permissible under law. The instant petition stands dismissed. No cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant