Page No.# 1/9 vs Rampal Roy And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3271 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs Rampal Roy And Ors on 18 February, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                 Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010097462008




                                                          2024:GAU-AS:7649

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

                           Case No. : RSA/63/2008

         SANDESWARI MEDHI
         D/O LT. LUKUM MEDHI, R/O VILL. KAKAIJANA, NAYAPARA, PO. NORTH
         SALMARA, PS. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         RAMPAL ROY and ORS
         -

         2:GOPAL ROY
          BOTH ARE SONS OF LT. BHUGURA ROY
          R/O VILL. KAKAIJANA
          NAYAPARA
          PO. NORTH SALMARA
          PS. ABHAYPURI
          DFIST. BONGAIGAON
         ASSAM.

         3:BIREN MEDHI


         4:BASUDEV MEDHI
          BOTH ARE SONS OF LT. KHAGEN MEDHI
          R/O VILL. KAKAIJANA
          NAYAPARA
          PO. NORTH SALMARA
          PS. ABHAYAPURI
          DIST. BONGAIGAON
         ASSAM

         5:SAILEN CH. ROY
          S/O DEULARAM ROY
                                                                        Page No.# 2/9

            VILL. CHAKAPARA
            MEDHIPARA
            PO. CHAKAPARA
            DIST. BONGAIGAON
            ASSA

For the Appellant(s)       : Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s)      : Mr. D. Choudhury, Advocate


Date of Hearing                          : 18.02.2025
Date of Judgment                         : 18.02.2025



                                      BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                             JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned First Appellate Court") in Title Appeal No. 2/2006 whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as, the learned Trial Court") in Title Suit No. 55/2006 was reversed. It is relevant to take note of that vide an order dated 16.07.2008, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the instant appeal by formulating 3 (three) substantial questions of law which reads as under:

Page No.# 3/9

1. Whether the plaintiff has acquired any right, title and interest on the basis of Ext. 1 (Regd. Sale deed) and Ext. 3 (patta), which were neither challenged by the defendants nor were cancelled by any competent Civil Court?

2. Whether the plaintiff is legally bound to prove Ext. 1, Ext, 2 and Ext. 3 as held by the learned appellate Court below, when those documents were never challenged by the defendants in any competent Civil Court for cancellation?

3. Whether the Regd. Sale Deed (Ext. 1), land Holding certificate (Ext.

2) and kacha patta (Ext. 3) will stand invalid in view of mere pleadings in W/S without any evidence as to the allegations of suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiff?

The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the 3 (three) substantial questions of law which were formulated are involved in the instant appeal. To ascertain the said, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellant herein as plaintiff had instituted the suit being Title Suit No. 28/2003 which was subsequently re-registered as Title Suit No. 55/2006. In the said suit, it is the case of the plaintiff that one Shri Meghnath Medhi vide the register deed of sale No. 441/2002 had transferred a plot of land admeasuring 17 Bigha 18 Lechas situated at Chakapara IInd part under Dihi-Birjhora, and under Bongaigaon Revenue Circle in the District of Bongaigaon, Assam which was covered by Dag No. 208 and Patta No. 182 (old) and 227 (new) in favour of the plaintiff.

Page No.# 4/9

Thereupon, the plaintiff in the month of May, 2003 transferred 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lechas of land to one Jyotsna Choudhury of Chakapara and the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas of the land which was more specifically described in the Schedule to the plaint. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have forcefully entered into the suit lands and started cultivating on and from 16.07.2003. The plaintiff obstructed to the same and thereupon continued to remain in possession. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff continued to remain in the possession though under extreme threat. It is under such circumstances, the plaintiff had sought for declaration of her right, title and interest in respect to the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint and for permanent injunction.

4. The defendants jointly filed a written statement. In the said written statement, the defendants denied that the plaintiff had any right, title and interest over the Schedule land or for that matter had any right, title and interest on the basis of the Deed of sale bearing deed No. 441/2002. It was the case of the defendants that the land admeasuring 17 bighas 18 lechas originally belonged to one Dhononjoy Medhi which was inherited by his son Ladura Medhi. Ladura Medhi expired leaving behind three sons namely Khadaram Medhi, Rupeshwar Medhi and Khogen Medhi. Khadaram Medhi had one son and a daughter namely Meghnath Medhi and Jotebala Medhi/Roy. Rupeswar Medhi had one daughter namely Sandeshwari Medhi i.e. the plaintiff and Khogen Medhi died living behind his son Biren Medhi and daughter Surjabala Medhi. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Jotebala Medhi/Roy. It was stated that Meghnath Medhi being the intelligent, literate and elder person of the family managed the said total plot of land admeasuring 17 Bighas 18 Lechas on behalf Page No.# 5/9

of the ejmali legal heirs and gotten his name mutated in the revenue records collusively and fraudulently without the knowledge and consent of the other ejmali legal heirs and thereby Meghnath Medhi cannot legally acquire full right, title, interest and possession over the said land. It was further stated that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had acquired rights over the suit land after relinquishing their right, title, interest and possession with mutual consent amongst the other legal heirs long back in their favour. It was therefore stated that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had right, title and interest over the suit land.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, 9 (nine) issues were framed by the learned Trial Court which reads as under:

"1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form and manner?

3. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder & misjoinder of parties?

5. Whether the suit is valued and under stamped?

6. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest over the suit land?

7. Whether plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants from the suit land?

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

9. Any other relieves to which the parties are entitled to?"

6. On behalf of the plaintiff 2 (two) witnesses adduced evidence and the plaintiff exhibited 3 (three) documents which were Exhibit 1- Gift Deed dated 22.07.2022, Exhibit 2- Land Holding Certificate and Exhibit 3- Kacha Patta. On Page No.# 6/9

behalf of the defendants, 2 (two) witnesses were examined and no documents were exhibited.

7. The learned Trial Court while dealing with the issue No. 6 categorically came to a finding that the plaintiff had got right, title and interest over the suit land. It was also a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Trial Court that the defendants though contended that the land was partitioned but could not prove that the land was amicably partitioned. It was further observed by the learned Trial Court that on the basis of the documents which were exhibited by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land. In respect to the issue No. 7, as to whether, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants from the suit land. Be that as it may, the learned Trial Court declared that the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land. Additionally, the learned Trial Court upon arriving at a finding that the plaintiff was dispossessed, observed in Issue No. 8 that the plaintiff was not entitled for an injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing her from the suit land and for disturbing with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, however, the learned Trial Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cultivating in the suit land.

8. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 2/2006. The learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007. In doing so, the learned First Appellate Court came to a finding that Meghnath Medhi fraudulently created the Page No.# 7/9

said sale deed and mutation in the revenue records. The learned First Appellate Court held that Meghnath Medhi did not have full right, title and interest over the suit land so as to execute the sale deed. It was further observed by the learned First Appellate Court that as the defendants took the plea in their written statement that the suit land inclusive of 17 Bighas 18 Lechas is a joint property through the predecessors common in interest of both the parties and as such the learned Trial Court committed an error for allowing the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land on the basis of Exhibit 1 only. Accordingly, the issue numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9 were decided in the negative. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

9. This Court has heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

10. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the 3 (three) substantial questions of law so formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court are all involved in the instant appeal. He however submitted that the 3 (three) substantial questions of law relates to the plaintiff acquiring right on the basis of Exhibit 1- Gift deed dated 22.07.2002, Exhibit 2- Land Holding Certificate, and Exhibit 3- Kacha Patta, which were not challenged by the defendants in any proceedings. He therefore submitted that the (3) three substantial questions of law can be clubbed together to the effect that without there being any challenge to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, was learned First Appellate Court justified in allowing the First Appeal.

Page No.# 8/9

11. Per contra Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that these substantial questions of law so formulated are not involved in the instant appeal inasmuch as, the property in question was a joint family property and the sale could not have been made by Meghnath Medhi exclusively in favour of the plaintiff. With all fairness he duly submitted that the defendants have not challenged Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 in any proceedings. He further supported the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court.

12. Upon hearing the learned counsels and taking into account that the 3 (three) substantial questions of law which were formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court relates to, as to whether, Exhibit 1- Gift deed dated 22.07.2002, Exhibit 2- Land Holding Certificate, and Exhibit 3- Kacha Patta which were proved by the plaintiff were sufficient for the purpose of proving the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and for the consequential relief. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that except making pleadings in the written statement, there were no documents adduced by the defendants to show that the land in question admeasuring 17 Bighas 18 Lechas was a joint family property. No revenue records were also produced before the learned Courts below that the said land which was transferred by Meghnath Medhi to the plaintiff/appellant herein originally belonged to one Dhononjoy Medhi.

13. Be that as it may, there is a registered deed of sale which was duly proved, whereby the plot of land admeasuring 17 Bighas 18 Lechas was sold by one Meghnath Medhi in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the said Deed of sale, the Revenue Authorities issued the plaintiff, the Land Holding Certificate which is Exhibit 2 and thereupon also issued the Kacha Patta which is Exhibit 3. From these three documents, it therefore transpires that the plaintiff had right, Page No.# 9/9

title and interest over the land admeasuring 17 Bighas 18 Lechas. The plaintiff had admitted in her plaint that she had transferred 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lechas to one Jyotsna Choudhury vide the deed of sale in the month of May, 2003. Thereupon, the plaintiff further claimed that she remained in possession of the schedule land which has been described in the schedule to the plaint. On the basis thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court was justified in decreeing the right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff as well as granting of the consequential relief.

14. The learned First Appellate Court in the opinion of this Court was not justified in disregarding Exhibit 1 i.e. the Registered Sale Deed Exhibit 2 i.e. the Land Holding Certificate and Exhibit 3 i.e. the Kacha Patta. Accordingly the substantial questions of law which were formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 16.07.2008 are duly involved in the instant appeal. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal Number 2/2006 is set aside and quashed and the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2006 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 55/2006 is restored.

15. The instant appeal is allowed with costs of Rs. 11,000/-. In addition to that, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs throughout the proceedings.

16. The Registry shall sent back the LCR to the learned Courts below.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant