Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Abdur Rahim 4 Ors on 7 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010172222025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/122/2025
NURUL ISLAM AND 2 ORS.
S/O. LT. MUSLEMUDDIN AHMED
2: NASIR UDDIN
S/O. LT. MUSLEMUDDIN AHMED
3: FARIDA BEGUM
W/O. LT. MUSLEMUDDIN AHMED
ALL ARE R/O. VILL.- AMBARI
MOUZA-GHILAZARI
P/O. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
VERSUS
ABDUR RAHIM 4 ORS.
S/O. SHOMESH UDDIN
R/O. AMBARI, MOUZA- GHILAZARI, P/O. AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
2:PRADIP KUMAR NATH
S/O. GOPAL NATH
R/O. NATH HOTEL
HOWLY TOWN
WARD NO. 2
MOUZA-GHILAZARI
P/S. AND DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
3:AJIT KUMAR NATH
S/O. GOPAL NATH
R/O. NATH HOTEL
HOWLY TOWN
WARD NO. 2
Page No.# 2/5
MOUZA-GHILAZARI
P/S. AND DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
4:KISHORE KUMAR NATH
S/O. DHARANI NATH
R/O. TARANI DAS COMPLEX
HOWLY TOWN
WARD NO. 4
MOUZA-GHILAZARI
P/S. AND DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
5:GITAMONI NATH
W/O. KISHORE KUMAR NATH
R/O. TARANI DAS COMPLEX
HOWLY TOWN
WARD NO. 4
MOUZA-GHILAZARI
P/S. AND DIST. BARPETA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M GOGOI, MR M AHMED,MR. N DEKA,MR. S U AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J AHMED, FOR CAVEATOR,MS A HUSSAIN,R BEGUM,H G
DAISY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
07.08.2025
Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J. Ahmed,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal, under Section 100, read with Orders XLI and XLII of the CPC,
is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2025, passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta (first appellate court hereinafter),
in Title Appeal No. 42/2024.
Page No.# 3/5
3. It is to be noted here that vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2025,
the learned first appellate court had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
judgment and decree dated 24.07.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Divison) No. 1, Barpeta (trial court hereinafter), in Title Suit No.
127/2013.
4. It is also to be noted here that vide judgment and decree dated
24.07.2024, the learned trial court had decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs/respondents herein and dismissed the counter claim of the
defendants/appellants.
5. Perused the memo of appeal as well as the grounds mentioned therein and
also perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.07.2025, passed by
the learned first appellate court and also perused the judgment and decree
dated 24.07.2024, passed by the learned trial court.
6. This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of
law:-
(i) Whether the learned courts below were justified in
not deciding the issue of limitation, when the prayer
Nos. f and g, pertaining to the power of attorney
dated 23.06.1993 and sale deed dated 29.03.1996, were
barred by limitation as the plaintiffs/respondents
herein admitted that he knew that his mutation over
the suit land was cancelled because of existence of
registered sale deed dated 29.03.1996?
(ii) Whether the learned courts below were justified in
holding that the power of attorney dated 23.06.1996
(Exhibit - G), was impliedly revoked upon execution
of the gift deed dated 05.01.1996, under Section 207
of the Contract Act, when the plaintiffs/respondents
Page No.# 4/5
herein had failed to plead and prove that the
execution of the gift deed was made known to the
power of attorney holder?
(iii) Whether the learned courts below were justified in
presuming that the power of attorney holder, being
the brother, had knowledge to the execution of the
gift deed and implied revocation of the power of
attorney, in view of specific provision of Section
208 of the Contract Act, which clearly provides that
the termination of the agency does not take effect
vis-à-vis the agent, till such implied termination is
made known to the agent? and
(iv) Whether the learned courts below had erred in
entertaining composite appeal having been preferred
by the appellants herein against the judgment and
decree so passed by the learned trial court decreeing
the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents and dismissing
the counterclaim preferred by the
defendants/appellants herein that too without
affixing separate/requisite court fee insofar as the
counterclaim is concerned?
7. The court may also consider framing of further substantial question of law,
if found necessary, at the time of hearing of the appeal, after notifying both the
parties.
8. Let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable in 4 weeks. As Mr.
Ahmed has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, no
formal notice is required to be issued. However, extra requisite copy of the
petition be furnished to him during the course of the day.
9. The registry shall call for the records from the learned courts below.
Page No.# 5/5
10. List the matter after 4 (four) weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
