Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
H.N. Sarma, J.
Sadhan Chanda and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Jagadish Nath and Ors. - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 130 of 1999
Decided on : 07.02.2008
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.R. Dey, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: M. Nath, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of raising relevant pleas and issues in the pleadings and the requirement of complying with the provisions of the Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, particularly regarding compensation for improvements and service of notice in ejectment suits.
Headnote:
Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act - Ejectment Suit - Section 6 - Section 11 - [1955 Act, Section 6, Section 11]
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff-Respondents filed a suit for khas possession of a land which was illegally transferred to the Defendants. The Defendants contested the suit, claiming to have purchased the land with consent and offering rent to the Plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, which was affirmed in the appellate judgment. The Defendants filed a second appeal challenging the judgment and decree.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, cause of action, valuation and stamping of the suit, service of valid notice to the Defendants, and the right to compensation for improvements made on the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the Defendants did not raise any plea regarding compensation for improvements made on the land, and no pleading or issue was framed in this regard. The Court also held that service of notice upon one of the Defendants was sufficient due to the joint tenancy and devolution of tenancy rights.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
H.N. Sarma, J.
1. This second appeal is filed by the Defendants/Appellants challenging the appellate judgment and decree dated 22.8.98 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Hailakandi, in T.A. No. 19/ 98 whereby dismissing the appeal, the decree passed by the learned trial Court in TS No. 82/92, decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff for khas possession was affirmed.
2. I have heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned senior counsel for the Appellant and Mr. M. Nath, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
3. The facts that emerge from the pleadings of the parties necessary for disposal of this appeal are that one Bhupendra Chakravorty took settlement of the suit land from late Jitendra Chandra Nath, the brother of the Plaintiff-Respondents. Subsequently on amicable partition, the schedule land fell in the share of the Plaintiff. Late Bhupendra Chakravorty without the knowledge of the Plaintiff-Respondents illegally transferred the suit land to one late Prabhat Chandra Chanda, the predecessor of the principal Defendants. The Plaintiff-Respondents having required the suit land for their personal use and occupation orally asked the Appellant-Defendants to vacate the same, but they not having complied with such demand of the Plaintiff-Respondents, registered notice to that effect was also served upon the Defendant No. 3 asking to vacate the suit land. However, the same not having complied with, the Plaintiffs-Respondents filed the Title Suit No. 82/92.
4. The principal Defendant contested the suit by filing written statements denying the allegations of the Plaintiffs-Respondents. Apart from taking usual legal plea, the Defendants, on facts pleaded that after the death of their father Prabhat Chandra Chanda, they are in occupation of the suit land and for such use and occupation, they offered rent to the Plaintiffs, but they refused to accept. Further case of the Appellant-Defendants is that they purchased the suit land with the consent of late Prabhat Chandra Nath, the brother of the Plaintiffs who was also a witness to the registered sale deed. Accordingly, they are not liable to be evicted from the suit land and the Plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief in the suit.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:
1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
2. Is there any cause of action for the suit?
3. Is the suit properly valued and stamped?
4. Whether any valid notice for the suit was served in the Defendants?
5. Whether the sit is bad under estoppel, waiver and acquiescence?
6. Whether the predecessor of the Defendants constructed any permanent structure on the suit land within five years of the settlement?
7. To what relief, if arty, the Plaintiff is entitled?
Additional Issues:
6 (a) What was the actual area of land in respect of which the registered lease deed was executed between Bhupendra Kumar Chakravorty and late Jitendra Chandra Nath?
6 (b) What was the actual dates from which the settlement between parties started?
5. Both the parties examined three witnesses each in support of their respective case and also exhibited some documents, the learned trial Court at the end of the trial decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs. The said decree was carried into appeal in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Hailakandi being Title Appeal No. 19/98. The said appeal having been dismissed on 15.6.99, the present second appeal is filed by the Defendants.
6. Although the appeal was admitted to be heard vide order dated 17.9.99, no specific substantial question of law was framed, but it was referred that the appeal would be heard on the substantial question of as enumerated in the memo of appeal. On reading of the grounds incorporated in the memo of appeal and as agreed to by the learned Counsels, the following substantial question found to have emerged in this appeal.
Whether the learned Court below erred in law in passing the impugned
