Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Dhiren Kalita And 3 Ors on 25 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010224172024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/117/2024
SMTI. PADMABATI DAS AND 5 ORS
W/O LATE HAHIRAM DAS, R/O VILL- MAJKUCHI, P.O.-AMRANGA, P.S.-
PALASHBARI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781125
2: NRIPENDRA KR. DAS
S/O LATE HAHIRAM DAS
R/O VILL- MAJKUCHI
P.O.-AMRANGA
P.S.-PALASHBARI
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781125
3: UTPAL DAS
S/O LATE HAHIRAM DAS
R/O VILL- MAJKUCHI
P.O.-AMRANGA
P.S.-PALASHBARI
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781125
4: SMTI. DIPIKA THAKURIA
D/O LATE HAHIRAM DAS
R/O VILL- MAJKUCHI
P.O.-AMRANGA
P.S.-PALASHBARI
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781125
5: SMTI. DHARITRY DAS NEOG
D/O LATE HAHIRAM DAS
R/O VILL- MAJKUCHI
Page No.# 2/11
P.O.-AMRANGA
P.S.-PALASHBARI
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781125
6: SMTI. BHANU DAS
W/O LATE SUREN CH. DAS
R/O HOUSE NO. 57
CHARIALI
P.S.-BASISTHA CHARIALI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-78102
VERSUS
DHIREN KALITA AND 3 ORS
S/O LATE RAMESH KALITA, R/O VILL- MAJKUCHI, P.O.-AMRANGA, P.S.-
PALASHBARI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781125
2:SMTI. SARADA KALITA
D/O LATE RAMESH KALITA
R/O VILL- MAJKUCHI
P.O.-AMRANGA
P.S.-PALASHBARI
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781125
3:SMTI. DEBO KALITA
W/O LATE JOGEN CH. KALITA
R/O VILL- RANGAMATI BAGAN
P.O.-BORDUAR
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781120
4:SATYA KALITA
S/O LATE JOGEN CH. KALITA
R/O VILL- RANGAMATI BAGAN
P.O.-BORDUAR
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-78112
Page No.# 3/11
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. BK Bhagawati
Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. AK Sarma
Date of hearing & judgment : 25.06.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. BK Bhagawati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners. Mr. AK Sarma, the learned counsel who appears on
behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, 'the Code) has been invoked
challenging the judgment and order dated 15.06.2024 passed in Title
Suit No.02/2014 whereby the suit which was filed under Section 6 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the SR Act') was dismissed.
3. At the outset, it is very pertinent to take note of that a perusal of
Section 6 of the SR Act shows that what is envisaged in such
proceedings is a suit of a summary nature. The question which is
required to be adjudicated in such suit is as to whether the plaintiff
Page No.# 4/11
was in possession of the suit land within 6(six) months from the date
of filing of the suit and if dispossessed, otherwise, than in due course
of law. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay
Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors. reported in
(2004) 4 SCC 664 at paragraph 4 & 5 being relevant are quoted
hereinbelow:
"4. A suit under Section 6 of the Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the
enquiry in the suit under Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession and
dispossession within a period of six months from the date of the institution of the suit
ignoring the question of title. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall
lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section. No review
of any such order or decree is permitted. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit
under Section 6 of the Act is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the suit
property and in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to recover possession of
the property notwithstanding the adverse decision under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, as
against a decision under Section 6 of the Act, the remedy of unsuccessful party is to file
a suit based on title. The remedy of filing a revision is available but that is only by way
of an exception; for the High Court would not interfere with a decree or order under
Section 6 of the Act except on a case for interference being made out within the well-
settled parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the
Code.
5. A perusal of the order of the High Court shows that the High Court has for the
purpose of reversing the decree of the trial court relied on the oral statements of Natai
Sheikh, PW 3 and Ram Sevak Ram, PW 5. One sentence each from the two depositions
has been extracted and set out by the High Court in its order for the purpose of forming
an opinion that it was not the plaintiffs but the defendants who were in possession of
the suit property before six months from the date of the institution of the suit. The High
Court has not looked into all the material available on record and has also not indicated
clearly the availability of any of the grounds within the parameters of Section 115 of the
Code so as to exercise revisional jurisdiction calling for reversal of the decision of the
trial court under Section 6 of the Act. The revision filed before the High Court cannot be
said to have been satisfactorily disposed of."
4. This Court has duly taken note of the impugned judgment and
Page No.# 5/11
decree passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Kamrup at Amingaon (for short, 'the learned Trial Court') and it is very
disheartening to take note of that the learned Trial Court had
proceeded with the suit in a manner where a suit based on Title for
recovery of possession is to be decided. What was relevant in the suit
was only Issue No. (iii). But surprisingly, the learned Trial Court went
into issues pertaining to right, title and interest and in that process, a
suit of a summary in nature which was filed under Section 6 of the SR
Act in the year 2013 was disposed of in the year 2024 after more than
a decade.
5. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into
consideration as to whether the jurisdiction so exercised by the
learned Trial Court requires any interference in exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction of the Court. This Court, having taken into
account that the proceedings pertains to Section 6 of the SR Act
would refer to the facts which is relevant in issue, de hors the fact
that both the plaintiff as well as the defendants and the learned Trial
Page No.# 6/11
Court went into issues which were absolutely not necessary.
6. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff No.2 had purchased
the suit land as described in the Schedule to the plaint vide the
registered deed of sale bearing No. 6906/72, dated 21.08.1972.
Certain disputes arose between the plaintiff and the principal
defendants in respect to possession of the suit land, for which, certain
proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 were initiated and orders passed on 03.05.2013. It is the
allegation made in the plaint that on 08.09.2013, the principal
defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs and on the basis of which an
FIR was filed before the Palashbari Police Station, which was not
taken into account by the police. Subsequent thereto, on 30.09.2023,
the suit was filed seeking recovery of possession under Section 6 of
the SR Act. The suit was initially numbered as Title Suit 359/13, which
was subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit No.2/2014. It is very
pertinent to mention that in the suit, the suit land was described as a
plot of land ad measuring 2 bighas 4 kathas 16 lechas covered by Dag
Page No.# 7/11
No.262 of NK Patta No.265 situated at village Majkuchi, Mouza-
Chayani and bounded by certain boundaries.
7. The defendants filed their written statement wherein the specific
averments contained therein was the land which was sold to the
plaintiff No.2 was the land contained in Dag No.152 and there was no
land sold in Dag No.262. It was also averred that in the FIR which
was filed on 08.09.2013, reference was made to Dag No. 152 and not
the suit land, which is Dag No.262. It was, therefore, stated that the
plaintiffs were never dispossessed from Dag No.262 on 08.09.2013.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as 5(five) issues were
framed which being relevant are reproduced hereinunder:
"(i). Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
(ii). Whether the Plaintiffs have any right, title and interest over
the land mentioned in Schedule of the plaint?
(iii). Whether the Defendants dispossessed the Plaintiffs on
08.09.2013 in an illegal manner?
(iv). Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought for?
(v). To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?"
9. The issue which is pertinent to the present proceedings under
Page No.# 8/11
Section 6 is Issue No.(iii).
10. On behalf of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants evidence
were adduced. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to take note of
that taking into account that the proceedings were under Section 6 of
the SR Act, the relevant issue was only Issue No.(iii) and the learned
Trial Court unnecessarily decided the Issue No.(ii), which touches on
the title, which the learned Trial Court could not have gone into in the
suit proceedings, and, more so, when the plaintiffs never sought for
the relief of right title and interest over the suit land.
11. While deciding the Issue No.(iii), the learned Trial Court came to
a finding that the plaintiffs' case was in respect to Dag No.152 as
would be a very much apparent from the written FIR filed on
08.09.2013, but the claim made in the suit was in respect to Dag
No.262. It was opined, therefore, that the plaintiff failed to prove that
within six months from the date of filing the suit, the plaintiffs were
dispossessed, otherwise, in accordance with law. It is on that basis
the suit was dismissed.
Page No.# 9/11
12. In the backdrop of the above, the present proceedings has been
filed.
13. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of both the parties and has also perused the materials on
record.
14. From the materials on record, the evidence so adduced, as well
as the findings so arrived at by the learned Trial Court in respect to
the Issue No.(iii), this Court is of the opinion that there appears to be
no error in exercise of the jurisdiction or any illegality or material
irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court.
However, it is observed that the learned Trial Court had exceeded its
jurisdiction in respect to the decision in Issue No.(ii), inasmuch as, in
the proceedings under Section 6 of the SR Act, the learned Trial Court
had no jurisdiction to exercise to decide the title.
15. Be that as it may, for the limited purpose of a proceedings under
Section 6 of the SR Act, the decision in Issue No.(iii) cannot be held to
be bad or in excess of jurisdiction. Considering the above, this Court
Page No.# 10/11
does not find this to be a fit case for exercising the revisional powers
under Section 115 of the Code, insofar as the decision in Issue No.(iii)
of the suit.
16. It is observed that taking into account that the learned Trial
Court could not have decided, in exercise of its jurisdiction in the suit
filed under Section 6 of the SR Act, the Issue No. (ii), this Court
observes that the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs herein would be
always at liberty to file a suit based on title for recovery of possession,
if so advised and the observations made in the impugned judgment in
Issue No.(ii) would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs.
17. With the above, the instant proceedings stands dismissed subject
to the liberty and observations made hereinabove. Taking into account
the facts involved, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.
18. The records be returned back to the learned Trial Court
forthwith.
JUDGE
Page No.# 11/11
Comparing Assistant
