Gauhati High Court
Abdus Samad vs Md Ali Akbar And Anr on 15 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010188502023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/165/2023
ABDUS SAMAD
S/O LATE MOYEZUDDIN,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOKILA NAYAPARA (NEAR BACKSIDE OF KOKILA
OUTPOST)
PO KOKILA, PS ABHAYAPURI, DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, 783392
VERSUS
MD ALI AKBAR AND ANR.
S/O SORBESH ALI,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANABINNYA, PO GOLAPARA, PS
ABHAYAPURI ,DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, 783384
2:MONSER ALI
S/O LATE MOYEZUDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANABINNYA
PO GOLAPARA
PS ABHAYAPURI
DIST BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
78338
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Page No.# 2/3
ORDER
Date : 15.09.2023
Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant.
The appeal is admitted for hearing upon the following substantial question of
law.
I. Whether the learned appellant court below was correct in reversing the
finding of the learned trial court below on the basis of Exhibit-3, i.e. the
resolutions taken in the village bichar held on 23.06.2013, whereas the
appellant/principal defendant neither attended the said meeting ( bichar),
nor put his thumb impression on it, and the learned appellant court below
without proving the same by the plaintiff under Sections 67 and 73 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has passed the impugned judgment and decree?
II. Whether the learned appellate court below was correct in deciding the
appeal in favour of the plaintiff by not burdening the plaintiff to prove the
authenticity of the thumb impression of the appellant/princi9pal defendant
on Exhibit-3 in violation of Sections 101 and Section 102 of the Indian
Evidence Act?
III. Whether the learned appellate court below was correct in allowing the
appeal without sending the thumb impression of the appellant/principal
defendant in Exhibut-3 to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for
confirmation of the same under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
since there was a specific denial on the part of the appellant/principal
defendant about his presence in the meeting held on 23.06.2013 and
putting his thumb impression on Exhibit-3?
IV. Whether the finding of the learned appellate court below is correct in
reversing the finding of the learned trial court below when the plaintiff
himself has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale
(Exhibit-1) of the land as described in Schedule-A and therefore, the
plaintiff/principal respondent is whether entitled for any relief under Section
Page No.# 3/3
16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
V. Whether the finding of the learned appellate court below suffers from
perversity when the entire evidence of PWs clearly show that the principal
respondent/plaintiff and appellant/principal defendant had agreed to transfer
of 5 bighas of land as mentioned in Schedule-A and accordingly, the
possession of the entire plot of Schedule-A land was handed over to the
principal respondent/plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement
dated 08.03.2011 (Exhibit-1) and the learned appellate court below ought
not to have believed the plaintiff's claim of handing over possession of only
2 bigha 2 katha 10 lessas of land out of the total agreed land of 5 bighas?
Issue notice returnable in four weeks.
The appellant shall take step for service of notice upon the respondents
by registered post with AD within three days.
Call for the LCR.
List the matter after four weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
