Gauhati High Court
Tarak Boro vs Ghanakanta Boro And 2 Ors on 28 October, 2024
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010178382024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/187/2024
TARAK BORO
S/O LATE KASHINATH BORO,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEKAPARA, MOUZA PAKA, PS SARTHEBARI, DIST
BARPETA, ASSAM 781314
VERSUS
GHANAKANTA BORO AND 2 ORS
S/O LATE UPEN BORO,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MORIPUR, SARTHEBARI, MOUZA PAKA, DIST
BARPETA, ASSAM 781307
2:SMTI PRATIMA BORO BAISHYA
W/O BIPUL BAISHYA
RESIDENT OF SATHIKUCHI/TATIKUCHI
PO GABRADAL
KAITHALKUCHI
DIST NALBARI
ASSAM 781370
3:SMTI LAKHI BORO
W/O NIREN BORO
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MORIPUR
SARTHEBARI
MOUZA PAKA
DIST BARPETA
ASSAM 78130
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA,
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 28.10.2024
Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, read with Order 41 Rule 1 of
the CPC, is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2024 and the decree
dated 30.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, in Title Appeal
No. 47/2022.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment dated 16.05.2024 and
decree dated 30.05.2024, the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta has dismissed the
appeal and thereby, affirmed the judgment dated 04.07.2022 and decree dated
05.07.2022, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Barpeta, in Title Suit No.
84/2015.
4. Perused the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also
perused the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2024 and the decree dated
30.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, in Title Appeal No.
47/2022 and the judgment dated 04.07.2022 and decree dated 05.07.2022,
passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 84/2015.
5. This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of
law:
1. Whether the learned first appellate Court as well as the
learned trial Court have erred in law in travelling beyond the
pleadings as well as evidence on record, while the respondents
herein have prayed for a decree in respect of Dag No. 17 of the
K.P. Patta No. 141 of village Moripur, under Mouza Paka, in the
Page No.# 3/3
Barpeta district, whereas the decree has been passed by the
learned Courts in respect of Dag No. 17 of K.P. Patta No. 155 of
village Moripur, under Mouza Paka, in the Barpeta district?
2. Whether the learned first appellate Court as well as the
learned trial Court have erred in law by failing to adhere into
the provision of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in
considering the Ext.A, the kacha sale deed, dated 03.03.1970,
exhibited by the appellant, which is more than 30 years old
document?
6. This Court may also consider framing of further substantial question of law
if found necessary at the time of hearing after giving notice to the parties.
7. Let notice be issued to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
8. Steps be taken upon the respondents by way of registered post with A/D
as well as by usual process within a week from today.
9. Registry shall call for the record from the learned first appellate Court and
the learned trial Court.
10. List the matter after four weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
