Gauhati High Court

RFA/35/2014 on 16 June, 2025

GAHC010185242014




                   THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
             (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
                                 Principal Seat at Guwahati

                                      RFA No. 35/2014.


              Gopal Krishna Tea Company Private Limited,
              A registered company having its registered office at
              Marwari Patty, Jorhat, PO & PS-Jorhat,
              Dist.-Jorhat, Assam,
              Represented by its Director,
              Shri Pramode Kumar Jalan,
              S/o Late Askar Jalan,
              Resident of Agarwalla Tea Company, Marwary Patty, Jorhat,
              PO & PS-Jorhat, Dist.-Jorhat, Assam.
                                                           ...... Appellant/Plaintiff.

                                         -Versus-



        1.    Sri Monibor Kurmi,
              S/o Late Bishnu Kurmi.
        2.    Shri Ramu Bhatre,
              S/o Shri Gangadhar Bharte.
        3.    Shri Basudeb Garh,
              S/o Shri Subedar Garh.
        4.    Shri Anjan Ragdi,
              S/o Shri Anil Ragdi.
        5.    Shri Lakhi Kanta Gowala,
              S/o Shri Thanu Gowala.
        6.    Shri Biju Baraik,
              S/o Shri Benu Baraik.
        7.    Shri Loknath Tirki,
              S/o Late Birdo Tirki.
                                                                          Page 1 of 24
 8.    Shri Durja Digal,
      S/o Shri Ganesh Digal.
9.    Shri Monoranjan Bouri,
      S/o Late Karma Bouri.
10.   Shri Sarbon Madraju,
      S/o Rupkumar Madraju.
11.   Shri Philip Tanti,
      S/o Late Kusho Tanti.
12.   Shri Tufan Gowalla,
      S/o Late Chatak Gowalla.
13.   Shri Debaru Baraik,
      S/o Late Babulal Baraik.
14.   Shri Surajit Tanti,
      S/o Late Rajendra Tanti.
15.   Shri Jitu Gaur,
      S/o Shri Somnath Gour.
16.   Shri Nolombar Deori,
      S/o Bhutu Deori.
17.   Shri Arun Deka,
      S/o Late Jugen Deka.
18.   Shri Subal Samasi,
      S/o Late Badul Samari.
      All are residents of Village-Kargil, PO-Nellie, PS-Jagiroad,
      Mouza-Utarkhula, Dist.-Morigaon, Assam.
19.   Shri Bapu Shyam,
      S/o Late Roshiklal Shyam,
      Resident of Village-Nellie, PO-Nellie,
      PS-Jagiroad, Mouza-Uttarkhula, Dist.-Morigaon, Assam.
                                                        ...... Principal Respondents

/Principal Defendants.

20. Shri Pradeep Kumar Sarat, S/o Late Lakhi Narayan Sarat, C/o Assam Trade Agency, 4th Floor, 11 Pollack Street, Kolkata-1.

21. Shri Prakash Chandra Dassani, S/o Late Bahalal Dassani.

22. Shri Saitya Narayan Karnani, S/o Late Bhairadal Karnani.

Sl. Nos.21 and 22 are residents of Village-Gopal Krishna Tea Estate, PO-Killing Valley, PS-Jagiroad, Mouza-Uttarkhula, Dist.-Morigaon, Assam.

...... Proforma Respondents /Proforma Defendants.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

Advocate for the appellant/plaintiff :- Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Sr. Adv.

                                               Ms. S. Todi

Advocate for the respondents/defendants :-     Mr. Singha (R-5)


Date of Hearing                         :-     18.03.2025

Date of Judgment & Order                :-     16.06.2025


                         JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon („trial court‟ for short), in Title Suit No. 04/2011, notably vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.01.2024, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the

present appellant for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property.

3. The background facts‟, leading to filing of this appeal, is briefly stated as under:-

"The appellant herein namely, Gopal Krishna Tea Company (P) Limited, instituted a suit, being Title Suit No. 4/2011, for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession for a plot of land measuring 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lessas covered by Dag No. 3, of Reedim Grant Patta No.1, Village No.1, Nellie Bagicha Kissam, of Morigaon District.

The pleaded case of the appellant is that one Askar Jalan @ Jalan, son of Late Mahadev Jalan, Lakhi Narayan Saraf, son of Late Chuhanlal Saraf, Baharlal Basani @ Dassani, son of Late Burthar Lal Dassani, Shri Satya Narayan Kanlani @ Karnani, son of Late Bhairadal Karnani and Smti. Narayani Devi, wife of Late Mahadev Prasad Jalan were the original pattadars of the suit patta land.

The plaintiff Gopal Krishna Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., is a Registered Company and Askar Jalal @ Jalan was the Director of that company who died on 20.08.2004, leaving behind Promod Kr. Jalan, the plaintiff as his legal heir. After the death of Askar Jalan, the plaintiff has been working as Director of the Company and he has been peacefully conducting the business of tea production and manufacturing at Gopal Krishna Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd, over the land belonging to Gopal Krishna Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. without any hindrance from any corner. The company area is a

vast area tea garden and without the knowledge of the plaintiff company, the principal defendants have constructed some temporary houses in various portion of the suit land and they have started dwelling in the said houses with their family members for last two years and they are also constructing small pucca houses in one portion of the suit land for the purpose of assembling being the followers of "Sat Sang Bihar". The plaintiff company came to know about the same on 01.05.2001. Thereafter, plaintiff visited the area and on 14.05.2011, a meeting was held at the Regional Office of Gopal Krishna Tea Co. Ltd., situated at Marowari Patty, Jorhat, and the Board of Directors made a resolution authorizing the plaintiff to institute the present suit against the principal defendants for removing them from their illegal possession of the suit land.

Thereafter, on 25.05.2011, the plaintiff personally visited the suit premises and requested the principal defendants to remove their houses from the Schedule -„A‟ land. But, they have denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiff‟s company over the suit land, and being aggrieved the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming the relief as aforesaid before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Morigaon.

The defendant Nos. 1 to 19 entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement denying the statement and averment made by the plaintiffs. Their case is that the Govt. of Assam had acquired 105 Bighas of land against Ceiling Case No. 1/1975 on 18.10.1977, covered by Dag No.3, of

a Reedim Grant Patta No.1 of Village- Nellie Bagicha Kissam, under Uttarkhola Mouza, in the District of Morigaon and the schedule „A‟ land falls in the area acquired by the Govt. of Assam and declared as ceiling land. Being land less persons and ex- tea garden labourer and employee of Gopal Krishna Tea Estate defendant Nos. 1 to 18, occupied some portion of the land for residing there and requested the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for allotment of land in their favour out of Govt. ceiling dag and accordingly, the Govt. of Assam allotted the land in favour of few of the person who are stated to be the proforma defendant Nos. 20,21 & 22 out of the 105 Bighas of land and the land is under the possession and enjoyment of the defendants since 1998. The plaintiff has not mentioned in the Schedule -„A‟ the individual quantum of land under possession of each defendants with specific boundary and as such, the plaint is bogus. And the plaintiff has no locus-standi to recover the possession of suit schedule land and the same is Govt. land acquired by Govt. of Assam under the provision of Assam Land Ceiling Act and they have not right, title and interest over the suit land.

The defendant No.19, filed separate written statement by taking a stand that the Schedule of the plaint is vague and he has no house over the Schedule- „A‟ land and Schedule- „A‟ land is community Prayer Hall of Nellie "Sat Sang Kendra/Mandir and is a place of worship by the followers of "Sat Sang Faith"

surrounding Nellie area, including followers/residents of Gopal Krishna Tea Estate.

The owner of land measuring 4 Bighas 1 Katha was Thanu Gowala, who was also a follower of "Sat Sang Faith" and he had given 2 Bighas of land out of 49 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessa, under Dag No.2, and 1 katha land out of 12 Bighas 4 Kathas 12 Lessas covered by Dag No.3, of the same grant of same patta and one Laso Bhatra owned 2 Bigahs of land covered by Dag No.2 (old), 60 (new) under the said grant under Provision-32 of the Assam Asthayee Bang Basti Aleka Rayati Act, and Revenue Officer served notices to the concerned person/pattadars of Patta No.1, of Nellie Bagicha to file objection if any vide notification dated 18.05.1979, for giving Rayati patta to the land holders. Accordingly, the Rayati patta was issued in favour of the Thanu Gowala and Laso Bhatra were confirmed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Morigaon and the Govt. of Assam has acquired 105 of Bighas of land in Ceiling Case No. 1/1975 on 18.10.1977, covered by Dag No.3, of the said grant and the Schedule -„A‟ land falls within the area acquired by the Govt. of Assam and declared as Ceiling land and Rayati patta holders/legal heirs of land mentioned in 12(d) and (e) have given no objection to "Sat Sang Kendra" Nellie for construction of Prayer Hall/Mandir in the premises which were under their possession and enjoyment on 05.02.2002. Thereafter, the public of Nellie submitted one petition to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for allotment of 4 Bighas of land under Dag No. 2 and

further the then Director of Gopal Krishna Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., namely, Askar Jalan, visited the premises under the possession and enjoyment of Nellie "Sat Sang Kendra" and assured to provide the boundary wall of the premises and financial assistance to "Sat Sang Kendra", Nellie and since 2002, the land is under possession and enjoyment of the defendant‟s "Sat Sang Kendra" and the plaintiff has no locus-standi to recover the possession of the Schedule-„A‟ land since the same land was acquired by the Govt. of Assam under the provision of Assam Land Ceiling Act, and they have no right, title and interest over the Schedule-„A‟ land.

Upon the aforementioned pleadings, the learned trial court had framed following issues for decision:-

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

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of Khas possession of "A" Schedule land?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction for restraining the principal defendants?

6. Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief/reliefs?

Thereafter, the plaintiff then examined two witnesses and exhibited five documents and the defendants also examined six witnesses and exhibited as many as three documents.

Thereafter, hearing arguments of both the parties, pleased to dismiss the petition as the plaintiff had failed to establish the case."

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant approach this Court by filing the present appeal on the following grounds:-

i) That, the learned trial Court has committed manifest error of law as well as facts in passing the impugned judgment and decree.

ii) It had committed manifest illegality for dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not mentioned the boundary of the suit land illegally dispossessed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 19.

iii) The learned trial Court wronged in appreciating the fact that out of 12 Bighas 4 Kathas 12 Lessas land of Dag No.3 of measuring 3 Bighas 1 Katha has been created a separate dag being Dag No.42 vide order dated 18.10.1977 and 14.12.1977. But, the plaintiff had claimed only for 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lessas of land under Dag No.3, and also the learned trial Court found that the 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lessas of land covered by Dag No.3, does not stand in Dag No.3 is perverse to the Ext-2, from where it appears that out of total land 12 Bighas 4 Kathas 12 Lessas belong to Dag No.3 and land measuring 3 Bighas 1 Katha have been created separate dag and Dag No.42.

iv) That, the Court has committed mistake by considering the admission of P.W. 1 that he has no knowledge of the boundary of the defendant Nos. 1 to 19 as because he possess the suit land only after the death of his father.

v) That, the plaintiff came to know about dispossession only on 01.05.2011, and about construction of temporary houses by the principal defendants and the defendants have failed to produce all the 14 witnesses for cross- examination, except D.W.1, D.W.3, D.W. 5, D.W. 7, D.W. 8 and D.W. 14 and the evidence of rest of the D.W.s were expunged which cause doubt about the conduct of the defendants and that from the evidence of defendants, it becomes clear that they have no knowledge about their dag no and patta no upon which their dwelling houses are standing and that the learned trial Court failed to consider that Ext. Ka, Kha and Ext. Ga are forged document. Under such circumstances, it is contended to allow this appeal.

5. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the appelleant submits that the Government has acquired 3 Bighas of land and there is no dispute about the same, but the dispute relates to only Dag No.3 and that Thanu Gowala has only 3 Bighas of land and he can donate out of the said 3 Bighas and he cannot donate land beyond the said 3 Bighas of land and that the suit is only in respect of Dag No.3, and the land in the said dag no is not Ceiling Surplus land and there is perversity in the judgment of the Hon'ble trial Court

and the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit without considering the evidence on record and without considering the certified copy of the Jamabandi Ext.2, and as such, it is perverse and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same.

6. Per contra, Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the respondents in his written argument and also supplementing the same by oral argument raised following contentions:-

(I) That Company is a distinct legal entity, a corporate body separate from its members, as envisaged in Salomon Vs A. Saloman & Co. Ltd., (1897) AC 22, which is a salient feature of the company. And the aforesaid proposition is followed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Escorts Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 4598 of 1984 with Civil Appeal No. 497 to 499 of 1985, reported in (1986) 1 SCC 264 and held that "While it is firmly established ever since Salomon Vs A. Saloman & Co. Ltd. was decided that a company has an independent and legal personality distinct from the individual who are its members........" Moreover, there is no pleading or document to show that the suit land was transferred by the Pattadars to Gopal Krishna Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. Since the land is not in the name of the said company in revenue records and/or no Deed of conveyance of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff Company has been exhibited than the Plaintiff

Company, cannot claim right, title and interest of the suit land in the absence of any title document or document of possession.

(II) As pleaded in the para No. 2 of the plaint, the area of land in Dag No. 3 of Reedim Grant Patta No. 1 of Village: No. 1 Nellie Bagicha Kissam, Mouza: Uttarkhula, is as follows:

Sl. No.     Particulars         Area of Land               Comments
                                Bigha      Katha   Lecha
1.            Total Area in the 12         4       12      No boundary mentioned
              Dag
2.            Less: Went to 2              3       10      No boundary mentioned
              Raiyats
Balance ought to be in the Dag 10          1       2
after transfer to Raiyats
3.            Suit land         9          3       8       Without mentioning land in
                                                           the same Dag in any of its
                                                           boundary
Balance after deducting the suit          2        14      No pleadings as to where the
land                                                       balance land has gone

(a) Suit land in the Schedule has one single boundary with no separate boundary against the land held by each defendant.

(b) Moreover, there cannot be one single boundary as the land which went to Raiyats also falls in the same Dag and Patta.

(c) Moreover, there is no pleading with boundary as regards the balance land of 2 Katha 14 Lecha which

remained after the suit land and the raiyati land has been deducted from the total land in the Dag.

(d) The entire Dag No. 3 of the Patta No. 1 cannot also be treated as the land for providing right, title and interest as the boundary and pleadings of balance land is silent.

(e) In any of the boundaries of suit land, there is no mention of having the remaining land in the same Dag and Patta. Thus, there happens to be defect in Schedule of land which makes it un-executable.

(f) The PW1, Shri Promod Kr. Jalan admitted in cross examination that "I cannot say the boundary of the residence of the defendant No. 1 to 19". And this admission regarding no knowledge of the boundary of defendants, itself calls for Judgment on Admission that plaintiff is not aware of the quantum of land to be realized from the defendant.

(g) Thus, the learned trial court had rightly decided the Issue No. 4 with the observations made in the last paragraph of the discussion made therein.

(III) In Paragraph 6 of the plaint it was stated that the defendants are going to construct a Pacca House as "Sat Sangha Bihar" and the defendant No. 19 also stated in para No.12 (g) that no-objection is provided for

construction of Sat Sang Kendra. Thus, it is an admitted fact that Sat Sang Kendra has its premises over the suit land but said Kendra has not been made a party defendant. Thus, on this count also the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

(IV) It is pleaded in the plaint that there is no accurate knowledge of possession by the defendants but is stated that it is "about" two years ago. On the other hand, the PW1 Shri Pramod Kumar Jalan representing the plaintiff company, has exhibited the certified copy of Jamabandi as Exhibit No. 2, which reveals the transfer of land to different Dag and acquisition of land as ceiling surplus land and hence the plea of the plaintiff to remain ignorant of possession of land by the defendant and stating it to be about two years ago, is an afterthought contention to harass the defendants.

(V) In any view of the matter, the company cannot get right, title, interest and possession of a land which is in the name of individuals and hence it is rightly dismissed by learned trial court below.

7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and also the decision referred by Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. In view of the submission of learned advocates of both the parties, the points for determination by this Court are formulated as under:-

(i) Whether the suit can be instituted in the name of company while the suit land is allegedly in the name of the Director of the Company ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing its right, title and interest over the suit land ?

(iii) Whether the finding so arrived at by the learned trial court is based upon the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record ?

9. Indisputably, the appellant/plaintiff had examined two witnesses, including him, and also exhibited 5 documents. The respondents/defendants had also examined 14 witnesses and out of which D.W. 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 were expunged since they failed to turned up for cross-examination. They have also exhibited 3 documents. I have gone through the same carefully and also gone through the impugned judgment carefully.

10. It is to be noted here that in the impugned judgment, while discussing the issue No.4, the learned trial Court found that the plaintiff has claimed land measuring 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lessas of Dag No.3 of the suit patta. But, from the note of Ext.2, the certified copy of the Jamabandi of Reedim Grant Patta No.1, indicates that

out of 12 Bighas 4 Kathas 12 Lessas of Dag No.3, land measuring 3 Bighas 1 katha has been created as a separate Dag No.42, vide order dated 18.10.1977 and 14.12.1977.

11. The learned trial court also went to observe that - land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Lessas of Dag No.3 of same patta has been acquired under Ceiling Act, from the Gopal Krishna Tea Estate and though the plaintiff has filed the suit by claiming the suit land measuring 9 Bighas 3 kathas 8 Lessas, covered by Dag No.3, of Patta No.1, the same land does not stand in Dag No. 3 of Patta No.1 and without knowing the actual facts, the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants. Though P.W.1 claimed having been in possession of the suit land, after the death of his father, and paying land revenue to the Govt. of Assam since 20.08.2004, yet, he had proved one land revenue receipt as Ext.3 only, which indicates that the P.W.1 paid land revenue for the year 2009-10. There is no document to show that he had paid land revenue prior to 2009-10, besides he admitted that he does not know the boundary of the defendant Nos. 1 to 19. He also admitted that a Rayati Khatian was issued on 28.05.1982, for a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Lessas and he cannot say whether Rayati Khatian was issued in respect of 1 Bigha 1 Katha of land in favour of Thanuram Gowala. He further admitted that he has no claim regarding the land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Lessas in respect of the land where in Rayati Khatian was issued. And he also cannot say the land measuring 105 Bighas of Gopal Krishna Tea Estate were declared as ceiling surplus land on 18.10.1977 or not.

12. Thereafter, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and D.W.1, D.W.8 and considering Ext. „ka‟, the learned trial Court arrived at a finding that evidence on record indicates that the P.W.1 having knowledge of all the facts has instituted the suit against the defendants and without mentioning the description of boundary of the suit land as illegally dispossessed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 19. He had given common boundary of the suit land and he does not know regarding the boundary of the occupier and accordingly, the learned trial Court has arrived at a finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree for recovery of khas possession of Schedule

- „A‟ land. Thereafter, it has also decided issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3 against the plaintiff and thereafter, dismissed the suit.

13. It is well settled in the case of Solomon (supra) and also in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) that a company has an independent and legal personality distinct from the individual who are its members. In the case is hand, the suit was instituted in the name of Gopal Krishna Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.

13.1 Further, Schedule „A‟ of the plaint indicates that the suit land is 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lechas falls in Dag No. 3 of Reedim Grant Patta No. 1 of Village: No. 1 Nellie Bagicha Kissam, Mouza:

Uttarkhula, District Morigaon. It also appears from para No.4 of the plaint and from the Exhibit No.2, (the copy of Jamabandi) that the pattadars of the aforesaid land are:

(i) Askar Jalan (deceased),

(ii) Lokhi Narayan Saraf (deceased),

(iii) Bahar Lal Dassani (deceased),

(iv) Shri Satya Narayan Kanlani (surviving) and

(v) Narayani Devi(deceased).

13.2 It also appears that except Satya Narayan Kanlani remaining pattadars have passed away and they were the Directors of the Company. One of the legal heir of the aforesaid pattadars who passed away substituted the deceased directors as the Director in the company except, however, Shri Satya Narayan Kanlani, who himself is the Director.

13.3 It also appears that there is no pleading or document to show that the suit land was transferred by the pattadars to Gopal Krishna Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. Since the land is not in the name of the said Company in revenue records and no deed of conveyance of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff company has been exhibited and as such, the plaintiff company cannot claim right, title and interest of the suit land in the absence of any title document or document of possession, in view of the settled legal proposition in Solomon (supra) and also in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) that a company has an independent and legal personality distinct from the individual who are its members.

13.4 In view of the aforesaid discussion and finding the points No.(i) and (ii) so formulated herein above for determination as to whether the plaintiff succeeded in establishing its

right, title and interest over the suit land and as to whether the suit can be instituted in the name of company while the suit land is allegedly in the name of the Director of the company, has to be answered in negative. And accordingly, the same stands answered.

14. Now, coming to the point No.(iii) for determination, I find that the Note of Ext.2, the Jamabandi of Reedim Grant Patta No.1, indicates that total land under Dag No.3 is 12 Bighas 4 Kathas 12 Lessas. It also appears that land measuring 3 Bighas 1 katha has been created as a separate Dag No.42, vide order dated 18.10.1977 and 14.12.1977. Further, it appears that - land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Lessas of Dag No.3 of same patta has been acquired under Ceiling Act. After the land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Lessas of Dag No.3 being acquired under Ceiling Act there remains 10 Bighas, 1 Katha 2 Lessas of land. However, the plaintiff has claimed right, title, interest and recovery of possession of land measuring 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lessas of Dag No.3 of the suit patta. There is no indication in the pleading, whatsoever, where the remaining land measuring 4 Katha and 14 Lessas had gone, while claim is being made for only 9 Bighas 3 kathas 8 Lessas, covered by Dag No.3, of Patta No.1 and the said land does not stand in Dag No.

14.1 Besides, P.W.1 had admitted in his evidence that he does not know the boundary of the defendant Nos. 1 to 19. Further, he admitted that a Rayati Khatian was issued on 28.05.1982, for a plot

of land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Lessas and he could not say whether Rayati Khatian was issued in respect of 1 Bigha 1 Katha of land in favour of Thanuram Gowala. He further admitted that he has no claim regarding the issuance of Rayati Khatian in respect of the land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 10 Lessas and he also could not say if the land measuring 105 Bighas of Gopal Krishna Tea Estate was declared as ceiling surplus land on 18.10.1977 or not.

14.2 The Asstt. Manager of the plaintiff Company is examined as P.W.2, who had admitted that he does not know if labourers of the Tea Estate has been possessing the land by constructing their house over the land which was acquired under the Ceiling Act and also he does not know if the proforma-defendant No. 20, 21 and 22 were allotted land by the Government and he also admitted having not aware of the boundary of the of the land being occupied by the defendant No. 19 and also not aware of the land gifted by Thanu Gowala and Laso Bhatra to „Sat Sang Bihar‟.

14.3 Thus, it appears that without knowing the actual facts the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants. Further, it appears that P.W.1 has instituted the suit against the defendants No.1 to 19 without mentioning the description of boundary of the suit land being illegally occupied by them. And admittedly, does not know regarding the boundary of the occupiers.

14.4 Order 7 Rule 3 CPC requires where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of

the property sufficient to identify it. Such description enables the court to draw a proper decree as required by Order 20 Rule 3 CPC. In case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record for settlement of survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. [See Pratibha Singh vs. Shanti Devi Prasad, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 330].

14.5 As discussed herein above, the suit was instituted against the defendants No.1 to 19 without mentioning the description of boundary of the suit land. And admittedly, P.W.1 and P.W.2 both does not know regarding the boundary of the occupiers. In the Title Suit No. 4/2011, prayer was made for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession for a plot of land measuring 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lessas covered by Dag No. 3, of Reedim Grant Patta No.1, Village No.1, Nellie Bagicha Kissam, of Morigaon District from the defendants/respondent No.1 to 19. All of them have different plot of land with different boundaries. The same are not capable of being identified with a common boundary for all the 19 respondents herein.

15. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the witnesses of the defendants, specially the evidence of D.W.8 reveals that land measuring 4 Bighas 1 Katha belongs to Thanu Gowala and Laso Bhatra and they are the Rayati Patta holders. Thanu Gowalla had 2 Bighas of land out of 49 Bighas 1 Katha 17 Lessa, under Dag No.2, and 1 katha land out of 12 Bighas 4 Kathas 12 Lessas covered by Dag No.3, of the same grant of same patta. And Laso Bhatra owned

2 Bigahs of land covered by Dag No.2 (old), 60 (new) under the said grant under patta No.1.

15.1 Their evidence also reveals that the Govt. of Assam has acquired 105 Bighas of land in Ceiling Case No. 1/1975 on 18.10.1977, covered by Dag No.3, of the said grant and the Schedule -„A‟ land falls within the area acquired by the Govt. of Assam and declared as Ceiling land. It is also being revealed that the public of Nellie submitted one petition to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for allotment of 4 Bighas of land under Dag No. 2 and further the then Director of Gopal Krishna Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., namely, Askar Jalan, visited the premises under the possession and enjoyment of Nellie "Sat Sang Kendra" and assured to provide the boundary wall of the premises and NOC in favour of „Sat Sang Kendra‟, Nellie and since 2002, the land is under possession and enjoyment of the defendant‟s "Sat Sang Kendra" and the plaintiff has no locus-standi to recover the possession of the Schedule-„A‟ land since the same land was acquired by the Govt. of Assam under the provision of Assam Land Ceiling Act, and they have no right, title and interest over the Schedule-„A‟ land.

15.2 And D.W.8 had proved Rayati Patta No.16 as Exhibit „Ka‟, which reveals that the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Morigaon vide order dated 19.12.1946 had issued Rayati Khatian in favour of Thanu Gowalla for a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas out of 49 B-1K-17Ls of Dag No.2 and land measuring 1 Katha out of 12 B -4 K- 12 Ls of Dag No.3 and Exhibit „kha‟ is the said notification, dated 18.05.1979.

And Exhibit-„Ga‟ is the NOC issued by Thanu Gowala and Habul Bhatra by which they had consented for construction of Sat Sanga Kendra‟ over a plot of land measuring 2B out of 49 B-1K 17 Ls of Dag No.2 and land measuring 1 Katha for construction of road out of 12 B-4K-12Ls of Dag No.3. The evidence of D.W.8 also finds corroboration from D.W.14, Shri Thanu Gowala.

15.3 Further, it appears from the pleadings of the parties that the defendants had constructed a pacca house as "Sat Sangh Bihar" over the suit land. The defendant No. 19 had given no-objection certificate for construction of said Sat Sangh Bihar. And indisputably, "Sat Sangh Bihar" is not arrayed as a defendant in the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

16. Thus, after careful consideration of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and also on meticulous examination of the documents, so exhibited and the evidence so adduced by both the parties, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish his right, title and interest over the Schedule- „A‟ plot of land, so as to entitle him to get a decree of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession over the same. And as such, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial court warrant no interference of this Court.

17. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

18. Send down the record of the learned trial court with a copy of the judgment and decree. The parties have to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant