Gauhati High Court
Taizuddin vs Saiful Islam And 31 Ors on 26 May, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010001822025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/80/2025
TAIZUDDIN
S/O. LT. SUBURUDDIN, R/O. VILL.- KHANDARKUR, P/O. BETBARI, DIST.
BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781327.
VERSUS
SAIFUL ISLAM AND 31 ORS
S/O. LT. KABIR MOLLA
2:SURJYA BEGUM @ SAHERA BEGUM
W/O. LT. KABIR MOLLA
BOTH ARE R/O. VILL.- KHANARKUR
MOUZA-BETBARI
P/O. AND DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781327.
3:MIA CHAND KHAN
S/O. LT. KAER KHAN
R/O. VILL.- KHANARKUR
P/O. BETBARI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781327.
4:HAZERA BEGUM
D/O. LT. KABIR MOLLA
R/O. VILL. KHANDARKUR
P/O. BETBARI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781327
Page No.# 2/6
5:ILIZA BEGUM
D/O. LT. KABIR MOLLA
R/O. VILL. AMRISHNAGAR
DIST. BAKSA
BTR
ASSAM
PIN-781364
6:PRIMAL ROY
S/O. LT. JOGENDRA MOHAN ROY
7:SHYAMAL ROY
S/O. LT. JOGENDRA MOHAN ROY
R/O. VILL.- DANGARKUCHI
P/O. GHILAZARI
DIST. BARPETA
PIN-781316.
8:BIMAL CHANDRA ROY
S/O. MAHENDRA MOHAN ROY
9:AMAL ROY
S/O. MAHENDRA MOHAN ROY
10:PABAN ROY
S/O. MAHENDRA MOHAN ROY
11:SHRABAN ROY
S/O. MAHENDRA MOHAN ROY
12:PRABHABATI ROY
D/O. MAHENDRA MOHAN ROY
13:LILABATI ROY
D/O. MAHENDRA MOHAN ROY
14:DHARITRI ROY
SL. NO. 8 TO 14 ARE R/O. VILL.- KALJHAR
P/O. BETBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781327.
15:MOHIMUDDIN
S/O. LT. SAYED ALI
R/O. AZAD NAGAR
DANGARKUCHI
P/O. GHILAZARI
Page No.# 3/6
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781316
16:HALIM KHAN
S/O. ABDUL KADER
R/O. VILL.- KHANDARKUR
MOUZA-BETBARI
P/S. AND DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781327.
17:JAHURA KHATUN
HEIRS OF LAT SAHEB ALI
18:RAMERA BEGUM
HEIRS OF LAT SAHEB ALI
19:SAHERA BEGUM
HEIRS OF LAT SAHEB ALI
20:FUL BANU AHMED
HEIRS OF LAT SAHEB ALI
21:ANNA AHMED
HEIRS OF LAT SAHEB ALI
22:JABED ALI
HEIRS OF LAT SAHEB ALI
23:ABED ALI
HEIRS OF LAT SAHEB ALI
24:ABUL KALAM AZAD
HEIRS OF LAT SAHEB ALI
SL. NO. 17-24 ARE R/O. VILL. BANDAKUR
P/O. BETBARI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781327.
25:SAHED KHAN
S/O. LT. KADER KHAN
26:SAMAD ALI SIKDAR
S/O. SANU SIKDAR
27:SUFIA KHATUN
Page No.# 4/6
W/O. ABUS SAMAD
28:ADALAT KHAN
S/O. LT. RAHMAN KHAN
29:ABUL HUSSAIN
S/O. CHAND MIA
30:RAMEZUDDIN
S/O. RIAZUDDIN
31:ASAM ALI
S/O. LT. MAINUDDIN
32:JAINAL ALI
S/O. LT. NAYEB ALI
SL. NO. 25-32 ARE R/O. VILL.- KHANDARKUR
P/O. BETBARI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-78132
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Das, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K Roychoudhury, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 26.05.2025
Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf
of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Taking into account the issue involved in the instant proceedings, it
has been submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
Page No.# 5/6
parties that the presence of the proforma defendants would not be
necessary. Accordingly, the names of the proforma defendants are struck
off. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant shall file
fresh memo of parties before the Registry of this Court within 7 (seven)
days and the Registry on the basis of the instant order shall make
necessary correction in the cause title and update the same in the CIS.
3. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 thereby challenging the judgment and decree dated
05.10.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 05/2021.
4. The instant appeal is admitted by formulating the following
substantial question of law.
Whether the learned Courts below were justified after coming to a
satisfaction that the plaintiffs were entitled to 2 Kathas of land out of
the Schedule A land to declare specifically the right, title and interest
over the Schedule B (1) land without effecting partition that too
when admittedly, the plaintiffs were not in possession of the
Schedule B (1) land?
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties that the plaintiffs along with the proforma defendants would be entitle to
2 Kathas of land and there being no dispute to that entitlement, but without
ascertaining the boundaries by way of partition the decree so passed may not
be proper, this Court would consider calling for the records on the next date
only.
6. Extra copy of the memo of appeal be served upon Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury,
Page No.# 6/6
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 during
the course of the day.
7. List this matter again on 02.06.2025 at 2.00 P.M for final disposal.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
