Page No.# 1/9 vs On The Death Of Md. Ibrahim Ali Laskar His ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 830 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs On The Death Of Md. Ibrahim Ali Laskar His ... on 4 June, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010172422016




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:7330

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

                            Case No. : CRP/255/2016

         HAJI IDRIS ALI LASKAR and ANR.
         S/O LT. MOSROB ALI

         2: MD. ISMAIL ALI LASKAR
          S/O LT. MAIYAR ALI
          BOTH R/O NORTH RONGPUR
          P.O. RONGPUR
          P.S. and DIST- HAILAKANDI
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         ON THE DEATH OF MD. IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY
         S/O LT. HAJI ABDUL GONI LASKAR, VILL. NORTH RONGPUR, P.O.
         RONGPUR, P.S. and DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM

         1.1:MUSTT. FATIMA BEGUM
          D/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
         W/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN. R/O VILL. NIMAICHANDPUR
          P.O. NIMAICHANDPUR 788160
          DIST. HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM

         1.2:MD. RAFIQUE AHMED
          S/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
          R/O VILL. NIMAICHANDPUR
          P.O. NIMAICHANDPUR 788160
          DIST. HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM.

         1.3:MD. SAFIQUE AHMED
          S/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
          R/O VILL. NIMAICHANDPUR
          P.O. NIMAICHANDPUR 788160
                                Page No.# 2/9

DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.

1.4:MD. SAYED AHMED
 S/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
 R/O VILL. NIMAICHANDPUR
 P.O. NIMAICHANDPUR 788160
 DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.

1.5:MUSTT. AYESHA BEGUM
W/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
 R/O VILL. RONGPUR
 P.O. NORTH RONGPUR 788155
 DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM

1.6:MD. KHASUR AHMED
 S/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
 R/O VILL. RONGPUR
 P.O. NORTH RONGPUR 788155
 DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM

1.7:MD. EKSAN ALI
 S/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
 R/O VILL. RONGPUR
 P.O. NORTH RONGPUR 788155
 DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM

1.8:MUSTT. MASUMA BEGUM
 D/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
 R/O VILL. RONGPUR
 P.O. NORTH RONGPUR 788155
 DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM

1.9:MUSTT. SALMA BEGUM
 D/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
 R/O VILL. RONGPUR
 P.O. NORTH RONGPUR 788155
 DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM

1.10:MUSTT. KHULSUMA BEGUM
 D/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI LASKAR
 R/O VILL. RONGPUR
                                                                       Page No.# 3/9

              P.O. NORTH RONGPUR 788155
              DIST. HAILAKANDI
              ASSA




                                    BEFORE
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


      Advocates for the petitioner(s)     :   Mr. TU Laskar


      Advocates for the respondent(s) :        Ms. M Bora

      Date of hearing & judgment          :   04.06.2025



                      JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. TU Laksar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. M Bora, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016 passed in Title Suit No.24/1998, whereby the suit which was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act of 1963') was decreed, thereby holding inter alia, that the plaintiff, who is the respondents in the present proceedings, was dispossessed without following the due process and the suit was filed within the period of limitation.

Page No.# 4/9

3. This Court had duly taken note of the findings of facts so arrived at by the learned Trial Court in its judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016 passed in Title Suit No.24/1998, whereby the suit was decreed and the counter claim so filed by the defendant No.1 was dismissed without costs.

4. For the purpose of deciding as to whether this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction in the instant proceedings, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present case.

5. The original respondent herein, as plaintiff, had filed a suit stating inter alia that he is the owner of Schedule-1 (Ka) and Schedule-1 (Kha) lands described in the plaint by way of inheritance and he was possessing the same since the last 44 years. It was alleged that on 09.06.1998, the defendants all of a sudden trespassed into the Schedule-1 (Ka) and Schedule-1 (Kha) lands by ploughing over the said land forcefully and removing the southern boundary (ail) and merged the Schedule 1(Ka) land with the land of the defendant No.1 on the south. It was also alleged that the defendants also merged the Schedule-1 (Kha) land by removing the northern boundary (ail) with the land of the defendant No.2 on the north and sown Aush paddy over the suit land. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed an FIR with the Bandukmara Police Outpost on 15.06.1998 and thereupon filed the suit on 01.07.1998.

6. The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing the written statement and denied the pleadings of the plaintiff and also filed the counter claim of the suit.

Page No.# 5/9

The defendant No.1 pleaded inter alia that he was the owner and in possession of the Schedule-1 (Ka) land, since the time of his father by virtue of purchase by the Deed of Sale dated 19.10.1998. The answering defendants also preferred a counterclaim along with the written statement for a decree on the counterclaim declaring that the Schedule-1 (Ka) land is a purchased land of his father. It was also stated that the answering defendants also denied the dispossession of the plaintiff from the Schedule-1 (Ka) land.

7. The defendant No.2 also contested the suit by filing a written statement by denying the pleadings in the plaint. In addition to that, the defendant No.2 inter alia stated that he had been in possession of Schedule-1 (Kha) land, since the time of his father, which was within the knowledge of the plaintiff and others. He further stated that the plaintiff, out of his ill motive and in order to grab the lands of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed a proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had filed a false compromise petition on 24.11.1998 in the alleged Misc.Case No.59/1998 stating that the defendant No.1 reached an amicable settlement in respect to the Schedule-1 (Ka) land. The defendant No.2 denied the settlement and that he had handed over the possession of the Schedule-1 (Kha) land in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No.3 also filed a written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff, and in addition to that, the defendant No.3 contended that he is the owner of 12 kathas of land in the suit patta as described in the Schedule of the written statement.

8. On the basis of those pleadings, as well as the counter claim, the learned Trial Court though initially framed as many as five issues, the said issues were Page No.# 6/9

as hereinunder:

(i). Is there any cause of action for the suit?

(ii). Is the suit maintainable in law and facts?

(iii). Whether the matter of possession and dispossession as claimed by the plaintiff is true?

(iv). Is the counter claim of the defendant No.1 is true?

(v). To what relief(s), if any, the parties are entitled?

9. Subsequently the above five issues were recasted and the recasted issues are as hereinunder:

(a). Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed from schedule-1 (Ka) and 1(Kha) land on 09.06.1998 and is entitled to get restoration of possession of the same?

(b). Whether the counter claim preferred by the defendant No.1 is maintainable and is entitled to get a decree on counter claim?

(c). To what relief(s) the plaintiff is entitled to?

10. On behalf of the plaintiff, six witnesses were examined. However, as the PW-3 did not submit himself to the cross, his evidence was expunged. On behalf of the defendants, five witnesses including the defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves along with the documentary evidence. The learned Trial Court, while deciding the question as to whether the plaintiff was dispossessed from the Schedule-1 (Ka) and Schedule-1 (Kha) lands from 01.06.1998 after taking into account the evidence on record, came to a categorical finding that that the Page No.# 7/9

plaintiff could prove the fact that he was dispossessed from the Schedule-1 (Ka) land on 09.06.1998 and the suit having been brought on 17.02.1999 was within one month from the alleged dispossession.

11. As regards the Issue No.2 which pertains to as to whether the counter claim preferred by the defendant No.1 was maintainable. It was held that the said counter claim was not maintainable. It was further held that the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for restoration of possession of the suit land. i.e. the Schedule-1 (Ka) and Schedule-1 (Kha). It is further seen that pursuant to the said judgment and decree passed on 29.03.2016, notice was issued and the execution of the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016 was stayed till the next date. However, the said stay order, thereafter, was not continued.

12. This Court has heard Mr. TU Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. M Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and has given anxious consideration to the submissions made.

13. This Court had duly taken note of the findings so arrived at by the learned Trial Court insofar as, the recasted Issue No.(a) is concerned as to whether the plaintiff was dispossessed from Schedule-1 (Ka) and 1(Kha) land on 09.06.1998 and was entitled to get restoration of possession of the same.

14. The evidence on record as adduced by the plaintiff witnesses categorically stated that the plaintiff was dispossessed on 09.06.1998 and this aspect as per Page No.# 8/9

the findings so arrived at by the learned Trial Court was not challenged in the cross-examination. Rather, the case of the defendants was solely based upon their title. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find that there was an error in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court in so far as the decision in the suit so filed by the plaintiff is concerned.

15. This Court further finds it very pertinent to take note of that a proceedings under Section 6 of the Act 1963 is in the nature of a summary proceedings and the only question involved in such proceedings is as to whether a person who is in possession of an immovable property has been dispossessed, otherwise, then in due course of law and as to whether the said suit has been filed within six months from the date of dispossession.

16. A further perusal of Section 6(3) of the Act of 1963 shows that there is no appeal or any review provided against such judgment and decree passed in the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963. The legislative intent in this regard is very clear. However, the learned Trial Court while deciding the suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 had allowed the defendants to file a counter claim based on title, which on the face of it, was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the Court while exercising jurisdiction in a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 would not have jurisdiction to decide the counter claim based on title. Under such circumstances, the decision so rendered by the learned Trial Court in respect to the maintainability of the counter claim is required to be interfered with, inasmuch as, it was in excess of its jurisdiction.

Page No.# 9/9

17. Consequently, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant revision application with the following observation(s) and direction(s):

(i). The judgment and decree so passed on 29.03.2016 in Title Suit No.24/1998 insofar as, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff does not require any interference.

(ii). The judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016 passed in the counter claim filed in Title Suit No. 24/1998 is interfered with only on the ground that the said Court did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said counter claim.

(iii). In view of the observation(s) and opinion expressed in Clause (ii), upon due execution of the decree passed in Title Suit No.24/1998 and thereby handing over the possession of the suit land in favour of the respondents herein, who are the legal representatives of the plaintiff, it shall not be a bar upon the petitioners herein to file a suit based upon title for recovery of possession.

18. Taking into account that for the last almost three decades the plaintiff had been deprived from the possession, this Court dismisses the instant proceedings with a costs of Rs.35,000/-.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant