Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Abdul Haoque And Ors on 4 June, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010093212008
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/4/2008
GUTTU and CO. PVT. LTD.
REGD. OFFICEAT JANIGANJ BAZAR, SILCAHR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.
2: THE MANAGER
KALINAGAR TEA ESTATE
PO. KALINAGAR TEA ESTATE
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSA
VERSUS
ABDUL HAOQUE and ORS
S/O MIA CHAND ALI.
2:MOINUL HOQUE
S/O ABDUL HOQUE
3:JAINUL HOQUE
S/O ABDUL HOQUE
ALL RESIDENTS OF KALINAGAR TEA ESTATE
NAPIT-CHERRA
PO. KALINAGAR TEA ESTATE
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : G N SAHEWALLA
Advocate for the Respondent : K UDDIN (R-1)
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
04.06.2024
Heard Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. R.
Choudhury, learned counsel for all the respondents.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and Decree
dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal
26/2003. By the aforesaid judgment, the Judgement and Decree dated
24.12.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Karimganj
in Title Suit No. 232/2000 has been affirmed.
3. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide
an order dated 07.01.2008:
(i) Whether the judgment of the appellate court below is in
accordance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code as the
learned Court has not considered the issued framed and answered
by the trial Court?
(ii) Whether the finding of the appellate court below is perverse to
the facts of the case and on mis-appreciation of evidence specially
with regard to DW-4, Civil Branch of District Administration holding
that the suit land is excess ceiling surplus land whereas as per
evidence of DW-4 no excess land has been surrendered nor
government made land khas?
(iii) Whether the judgment of the learned appellate Court below
is perverse is dismissing the appeal in spite of its finding that the
Page No.# 3/5
defendants failed to exhibit any legally enforceable document of
taking lease whereas the appellant proved their title deed vide
exhibit-1?
(iv) Whether the finding of the court below is perverse in
holding that exhibit-1 does not relate to suit land whereas exhibit-1
relate to the land of entire garden and suit land is a small portion
inside the garden land surrounded on all sides by the garden land?
4. The suit was instituted by the appellant as plaintiff for eviction of the
defendants. While the plaintiff has ascertained that the land in question was
purchased by them from the vendor "Shri Ram Tea Company" by a registered
deed, the defendants had entered possession on the strength of an unregistered
lease deed from the same vendor "Shri Ram Tea Company". It however
transpires that the sale deed which the plaintiff was relying upon was in the
name of a firm whereas the plaintiff is a company registered.
5. Be that as it may, without going into further details, the learned counsel for
the rival parties have fairly informed this Court that analogous suits were filed
by the same plaintiff which had resulted in similar RSA. It has also been
informed that all the RSAs have been dismissed and in respect of one of the
RSA, an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was preferred which also
dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the parties has also placed before this Court a copy
of a recent judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed in a similar RSA 160/2007.
7. A perusal of the said judgment would reveal that the said appeal was
against a Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2007 as in the present appeal. The
said RSA 160/2007 vide the aforesaid judgment dated 30.04.2024 has been
Page No.# 4/5
dismissed by making the following observations regarding the substantial
questions of law:
"11. The first substantial question of law so formulated is as to
whether the judgment of the Courts below are perverse to the facts
of the case in coming to a finding that Ext. 7 is not specific because
Dag Numbers were not mentioned although Ext. 7 contained the
Tauzi number and the account numbers of different plots of land
which clearly shows that the appellants purchased the entire
Kalinagar Tea Estate and the suit land. In the opinion of this Court,
the said question of law cannot be a question involved in the instant
Appeal taking into account that perusal of Ext.7 only describes the
land in the first Schedule as Tauzi along with account. But there is
no correlation with the said Tauzi and the account so mentioned in
Ext.7 with the corresponding Dags in the pleadings as well as in the
evidence. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that
the said substantial question of law so formulated is not involved in
the instant Appeal.
12. The second substantial question of law is as to whether the
judgment of the Appellate Court is perverse being not passed on the
pleadings and evidence on record and no oral evidence has been
considered by the Appellate Court. This Court has duly taken not of
that the judgment of the learned Trial Court and also of the First
Appellate Court wherein it appears that the material evidence has
been duly taken note of. Under such circumstances, the said
substantial question of law so formulated does not arise in the
instant Appeal, more so when the appellants completely failed to
show which evidence if considered in a different perspective would
have changed the course of the proceedings in favour of the
appellants."
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the issues involved being
analogous to the issues in the earlier RSA which has been dismissed and one of
such dismissal order has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this
RSA is also required to be dismissed in the line of the earlier judgment.
Page No.# 5/5
9. The present appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
10. The observations regarding the cost which is reproduced below would also
be applicable in the instant case.
"14. Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed with costs quantified
at Rs.20,000/- for the instant proceedings. In addition to that, the
defendants shall be entitled to costs throughout."
11. Send back the records.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
