Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Gau) 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J.
On the death of Tufani Nunia, his legal heirs (Basudev Chouhan and Ors.) All are residents of Barjalenga Part VI, 16 No. Basti, P.O. Kabuganj, Pargana-Chatla, Dist-Cachar, Assam – Appellants
Vs.
Makram Ali and Ors. – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 90/2002
Decided On: 27.07.2012

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. R.L. Yadav and Mr. S. Chouhan, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. M.K. Das and Mr. S. Banik, Advocates

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient description of immovable property in the plaint to enable the court to pass an effective decree, as mandated by Order 7 Rule 3 CPC.

Headnote:
Land Dispute - Identification of Land - Order 7 Rule 3 CPC - Schedule I, IA, IB - 1. The court discussed the identification of the land in the context of the description provided in the plaint and the requirements under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC. It held that the description of the schedule IA and IB land was not sufficient to identify the land, as it did not include dag numbers or boundaries, which are necessary for an effective decree. 2. The court emphasized that the purpose of providing a description of immovable property in the plaint is to enable the court to pass an effective decree, and failure to provide such description may result in the dismissal of the claim for lack of identification. 3. The court set aside the judgment and decree related to the claim for jot right in respect of the land covered by R.S. Patta No. 171 and remitted the case to the first appellate court for a fresh decision, while directing that the claim for jot right in respect of schedule IA and IB land should not be considered.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest over certain lands, including jot rights, and sought cancellation of khatians issued in favor of the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the description of the schedule IA and IB land in the plaint was not sufficient to identify the land, as it lacked dag numbers and boundaries, which are essential for an effective decree. It set aside the judgment and decree related to the claim for jot right in respect of the land covered by R.S. Patta No. 171 and remitted the case to the first appellate court for a fresh decision, while directing that the claim for jot right in respect of schedule IA and IB land should not be considered.
Issues: The issues included the identification of the suit land, the maintainability of the suit, defects of parties, limitation, right, title, and interest of the plaintiff, cancellation of khatians, and jurisdiction to declare demarcation case as illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing a sufficient description of immovable property in the plaint to enable the court to pass an effective decree. It held that failure to provide such description may result in the dismissal of the claim for lack of identification.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree related to the claim for jot right in respect of the land covered by R.S. Patta No. 171, and remitted the case to the first appellate court for a fresh decision, while directing that the claim for jot right in respect of schedule IA and IB land should not be considered.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. This appeal by the successors-in-interest of the original plaintiff, Tufani Nunia, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 2 (now Civil Judge), Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 36/1992, allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1992 (decree drawn on 26.8.1992) by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants instituted the Title Suit No. 121/1988 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, No. 2 Cachar at Silchar for declaration of his right, title and interest over the schedule I(A) land, which is part of schedule I land; declaration of his jot right over the schedule I (B) land, under the proforma defendant Nos. 7 to 16 which is also a part of schedule I land; for declaration that the proforma defendants have no right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. The plaintiff also prayed for declaration that the final khatian No. 54 issued in favour of the principal defendants in respect of Schedule II B land is collusive, fraudulent, illegal and void, apart from claiming a decree declaring the final khatian No. 53 to be accordingly amended/corrected after such cancellation of khatian No. 54. The plaintiff also claimed a declaration that he is a tenant under the proforma defendant Nos. 7 to 16 in respect of the schedule land except schedule I (A) land as well as for declaration that the demarcation case No. 48/87-88 instituted before the Sub Deputy Collector (Sadar) Silchar is illegal, inoperative, apart from praying for direction to issue khatian in favour of the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that he vide sale deeds dated 13.11.1967 (Ext. 4) and 19.4.1965 (Ext. 6) purchased two plots of land from the original owner namely Harikrishna Nath and Narendra Nath Choudhury, respectively, who have by the said documents transferred their rights over the land measuring 6 bighas 7 kathas 15 chataks and 10 bighas 2 kathas 14 chataks 10 gandas, respectively, which land forms part of schedule IA land. It is the claim of the plaintiff that by virtue of such sale the original owners transferred their right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff has acquired the right, title and interest. The further pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he also purchased the jot rights from the landlord Rup Singh vide registered deed dated 10.4.1963 (Ext. 5), in respect of 20 bighas 10 kathas 12 chataks 10 gandas of land in R.S. patta No. 171 and 172 and hence he became the jot right holder over the said land, out of which 5 bighas 6 kathas 8 chataks of land was surrendered by the plaintiff being ceiling surplus land over which the proforma defendant Nos. 17, 18 and 19 got their possession certificate and accordingly possessed the same. The plaintiff has further pleaded in the plaint that the defendants having no possession or jot right over the land collusively included the land in the khatian No. 53 and 54 issued in their names in the year 1977 and being armed with such khatians issued, there was an attempt made to dispossess the plaintiff from the part of the suit land in the middle of May 1988, for which the suit had to be instituted, as aforesaid.

2. The principal defendants on receipt of the summons entered appearance and contested the suit by filing the joint written statement contending inter alia that Mastan Ali, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the father of the defendant No. 6 took settlement of the land in RS patta 171 covered by dag No. 708/710/711/721 from the landlord on condition of payment of yearly rent and as such they have acquired the status of non evictable occupancy tenant for which the revenue authority after making necessary enquiries issued two khatians bein

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis