4: Sarif Ahmed Laskar vs Hefajul Hussain Laskar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4365 Gua

Gauhati High Court

4: Sarif Ahmed Laskar vs Hefajul Hussain Laskar on 24 March, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                 Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010091892020




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:3305

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

                            Case No. : CRP/57/2020

         ON THE DEATH OF SAFIUR RAHMAN LASKAR, HIS LEGAL HEIRS
         DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI

         1.1: HUSNA BEGUM LASKAR
         W/O SAFIUR RAHMAN LASKAR
          R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN
         WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR) P.S. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. PIN-788151

         1.2: ARIF AHMED LASKAR
          S/O SAFIUR RAHMAN LASKAR
          R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN
         WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR) P.S. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. PIN-788151

         1.3: TARIF AHMED LASKAR
          S/O SAFIUR RAHMAN LASKAR
          R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN
         WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR) P.S. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. PIN-788151

         1.4: SARIF AHMED LASKAR
          S/O SAFIUR RAHMAN LASKAR
          R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN
         WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR) P.S. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI. PIN-788151

         2: MD. SAMIR UDDIN LASKAR
          S/O- LATE SUKKUR ALI LASKAR
          R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
         WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
          P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
          PIN- 788151

         3: MD. REJAN ALI LASKAR
          S/O- LATE SUKUR ALI LASKAR
          R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
         WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
                                           Page No.# 2/10

P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
PIN- 788151

4: MD. RAJU UDDIN LASKAR
 S/O- MD. REJAN ALI LASKAR
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

5: MD. BABUL MIA LASKAR
 S/O- SAMIR UDDIN LASKAR
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

6: MA ALA UDDIN LASKAR
 S/O- REJAN ALI LASKAR
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

7: MD. TAJAN MIA LASKAR
 S/O- REJAN ALI LASKAR
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

8: MD. HEFAJUL ISLAM
 S/O- LATE SURMAN ALI
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

9: MD. GULAL MIA BARBHUIYA
 S/O- LATE SUNA MIA BARBHUIYA
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

10: MD. ZAKIR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA @ REJAK
 S/O- LATE ABDUL ALI BARBHUIYA
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
                                    Page No.# 3/10

WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
PIN- 788151

11: MD. GULEJAR ALI BARBHUIYA
 S/O- LATE SUNDARMONAI BARBHUIYA
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

12: MD. RUKAN UDDIN BARBHUIYA
 S/O- LATE TUTA MIA BARBHUIYA
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

13: MD. RIPON UDDIN BARBHUIYA
 S/O- LATE TUTA MIA BARBHUIYA
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

14: MD. MONJUR ALI BARBHUIYA
 S/O- MD. MARU MIA BARBHUIYA
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

15: MD. KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA
 S/O- MD. MARU MIA BARBHUIYA
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

16: MD. RAHIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA
 S/O- MD. NARU MIA BARBHUIYA
 R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
 P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
 PIN- 788151

17: MD. MALIK UDDIN BARBHUIYA
 S/O- LATE BAROMONAI BARBHUIYA
                                                                      Page No.# 4/10

             R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
             WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
             P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
             PIN- 788151

            18: MD. UNNUS ALI BARBHUIYA
             S/O- LATE BARA MONAI BARBHUIYA
             R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
            WARD NO. 10 (NARAINPUR)
             P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
             PIN- 78815

            VERSUS

            HEFAJUL HUSSAIN LASKAR
            S/O- LATE FOIJUL HAQUE LASKAR, R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN, WARD NO.
            10 (NARAINPUR), P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, PIN- 788151



For the Petitioner(s)        : Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Advocate


For the Respondent(s)         : Ms. N. Dey, Advocate




                                BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


Date : 24-03-2025

                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. N. Dey, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. By the present proceedings, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") have Page No.# 5/10

been invoked challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Trial Court") in Title Suit No. 102/2014.

3. It is relevant to take note of that Title Suit No. 102/2014 is a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking for declaration of possession of the plaintiff over the Schedule land and for recovery of possession thereof in favour of the plaintiff against the principal defendants and for other reliefs.

4. The question arises, as to whether, this Court is required to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in the present facts of the case.

5. It is seen that the respondent No. 1 herein as plaintiff had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 102/2014. In the said suit the case of the respondent No. 1 is that the proforma defendant Nos. 20 and 21 vide a registered Deed of Sale bearing deed No. 2775 dated 16.08.2014 transferred 7 Kathas 8 Chataks of land more fully described in the Schedule to the plaint to the plaintiff and delivered possession to him on the date of execution of the registered deed of sale. On 31.08.2014, the principal defendants along with others in absence of the plaintiff entered into the purchased land of the plaintiff and damaged the boundary fencing constructed by the plaintiff with CI sheets and also completely damaged the three numbers of kaccha houses and took possession of a house constructed by the proforma defendant No. 20 under the scheme of Indira Awaas Yojana bearing Holding No. 82 and a kaccha house with CI sheet roof bearing holding No. 30 and dispossessed the plaintiff by assaulting his mother and the proforma defendant Nos. 20 and 21. The plaintiff immediately upon Page No.# 6/10

coming to learn lodged an FIR before the Hailakandi Police Station which was registered and numbered as Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 491/2014 under Section 120B/147/148/427/325/326/307/380 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequent thereto, on 06.09.2014, the suit was filed seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff by evicting the principal defendants and their men and agents etc. and/or anyone claiming through or under them by removal and dismantling of all obstructions and hindrances and for permanent injunction against the principal defendants restraining them from changing the nature and feature of the Schedule land in any manner.

6. Pursuant to the filing of the suit, the defendant Nos. 1 and 8 to 19 filed their written statements denying the case of the plaintiff wherein it was stated that the proforma defendant Nos. 20 and 21 never had possession over the suit land and the said proforma defendant Nos. 20 and 21 had created a deed bearing deed No. 2775 dated 16.08.2014 by giving a false and imaginary boundary including the land under the possession of the defendant No. 1 and his brothers. The defendant Nos. 2 to 7 also filed a written statement wherein denied the case of the plaintiff. It was stated that the said defendants were in possession of the suit land and the deed of sale bearing deed No. 2775 dated 16.08.2014 contained a fictitious boundary in the northern side and in place of the answering defendants path they had given the land of one Liakot Ali in the northern boundary. The proforma defendant Nos. 20 and 21 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff.

7. On the basis of the pleadings as many as 7 (seven) issues were framed which are reproduced herein under:

Page No.# 7/10

"i. Whether there is any cause of action?

ii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to right, title, interest over the suit land?

iv. Whether the plaintiff in possession of the suit land and dispossessed by the defendants?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitiled to testoration of possession of suit land by evicting the defendants?

vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any reliefs as prayed for?

vii. To what relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?"

8. On behalf of the plaintiff 4 (four) witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendant 5 (five) witnesses were examined. Both the plaintiff and the defendants adduced documentary evidence.

9. The learned Trial Court after detailed discussion of the evidence on record came to a categorical finding that the plaintiff had proved his possession of the suit land prior to 31.08.2014. It was further observed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that the principal defendants have dispossessed the plaintiff on 31.08.2014. The learned Trial Court also opined from the evidence on record that the defendants could not show that they were in possession of the suit land prior to the dispossession on 31.08.2014. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit, thereby declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the possession of the suit land by evicting the principal defendants and Page No.# 8/10

their men and agents, etc. or anyone claiming through or under them by removing and dismantling all obstructions. The prayer for permanent injunction, however, was not granted. It is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been filed under Section 115 of the Code.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent. The question arises, as to whether, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. Before proceeding to adjudicate the present lis, this Court finds it relevant to deal with the contours of the jurisdiction to be exercised in the present proceedings. In this respect, this Court finds it profitable to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein the scope of the revisional jurisdiction was explained. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Cororation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh [1] , the Supreme Court in paragraph No. 43 observed as under:

"43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to Page No.# 9/10

correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity."

11. In the backdrop of the above exposition of law, let this Court now take up the judgment and decree so passed by the learned Trial Court. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it would be seen that the learned Trial Court in detail have taken into account the evidence of both the parties and had came to an opinion that the plaintiff could prove that he was handed over the possession of the suit land on 16.08.2014 and further could prove that on 31.08.2014, the plaintiff was dispossessed. The learned Trial Court after taking into account the evidence of the defendants came to a categorical opinion that the defendants failed to show that they were in possession of the suit land prior to 31.08.2014. It was the categorical observation of the learned Trial Court that the defendants except stating that they were in possession of the suit land and they have not dispossessed the plaintiff, they had nothing to offer. On the basis Page No.# 10/10

thereof, the learned Trial Court had arrived at a finding of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on 16.08.2014 and he was dispossessed on 31.08.2014 without due process. These finding of facts so arrived at does not appear to suffer from perversity. Additionally, nothing could be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners for which this Court is required to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

12. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that from a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or that the learned Trial Court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it by law. This Court further is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, the question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction in the instant proceedings does not arise, for which, the instant petition stands dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

13. The instant petition accordingly stands dismissed.

JUDGE

[1] (2014) 9 SCC 78

Comparing Assistant