SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Gau) 130

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Amitava Roy, J.
Phulmati and and Ors. -Appellant
Versus
Bidyut Jyoti Dutta Choudhury and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 64 of 2002
Decided On : 19-03-2002

Advocates Appeared:
S.C.Kayal, S.K.Ghose , R.C.Paul, N.Choudhary, D.Majumdar, S.Saikia

Adequate representation of parties in previous suits and the applicability of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Revision Petition - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 41(b) - Section 41(h)

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their jote right over the land and for a further declaration that the judgment and decree obtained by the opposite party in previous suits were illegal. They also sought a permanent injunction restraining the opposite party from dispossessing them from the suit land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decrees obtained in the previous suits were legal and valid as the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs were adequately represented in those suits. The court also held that the prayer for injunction was barred under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issues: Representation of plaintiffs' interest in previous suits, legality of decrees obtained, applicability of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the adequacy of representation of the plaintiffs' interest in previous suits and the applicability of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated. No costs were awarded.

AMITAVA ROY, J.-

The present revision petitioners are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 175/98 filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Karimganj praying for a decree inter-alia for declaration of their jote right over the suit land and for a further declaration that the judgment and decree obtained by the opposite party No. 1 in Title Suit No. 68 of 1967 and Title Suit No. 34 of 1968 from the Court of Munsiff, Karimganj against the opposite party No. 2 to 6 and the proceedings of the Title Execution case No. 3 of 1998 are illegal, null and void and in -operative in law. They also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the opposite party No. 1 from dispossessing them from the suit land by executing the decree obtained in the above mentioned suits. Along with the plaint they also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the opposite party No. 1 from executing the decree in the aforesaid suits.

2. Their case in short, in the plaint is, that the manager of the opposite petty No. 1 gave jote settlement of the suit land to one Muslim AH and his wife Joyful Bibi by executing a registered deed No. 2364 dated 23.2.1948. Muslim Ali died leaving behind his widow Joyful Bibi, two sons, Nuruddin (opposite party No.2) and Abdul Sabur(opposite party No. 3) and three daughters Haribibi, Chand Bibi and Kamlibibi. Chand Bibi died leaving behind her husband Shekhawat Ali (petitioner No. 5) and two daughters Asarun Bibi ( Petitioner No. 3) and Sheela Bibi (petitioner No. 4). Their further case is Haribibi died leaving behind her husband Abdul Ali, son Kutub Ali (opposite party No. 6) and two daughters namely-Phulmati (petitioner No. 1) and Kalu Bibi. Kalu Bibi died leaving behind her daughter Alokjan Bibi (petitioner No. 2). Eventually Joyful Bibi died leaving behind her son Noor Uddin (opposite party No. 2) and Abdus Sabur and daughter Kamli Bibi (opposite party No. 5). Similarly Abdul Sabur, son of Muslim Ali died leaving behind Golapjan Bibi (opposite party No. 3) and two daughters Ala Khatoon (opposite party No. 4) and Leela Bibi (petitioner No. 6). The substance of the case of the petitioners in the suit is that the Title Suit No, 68/67 and Title Suit No. 34/68 were filed without making them parties though they were vitally interested in the suit land and therefore the decrees obtained in the said suits were illegal, void and in Cooperative in law having been procured fraudulently and behind their back.

3. The opposite party No. 1 filed his written statement Contending inter-alia that the decrees obtained in the above mentioned suits were legal and vaild all aspects and that the petitioners had no prima-facie case to go for trial. They contended that the above mentioned suits were filed against all the legal heirs of Muslim Ali and Joyful Bibi and therefore the claim made by the petitioners in the suit case wholly untenable. They asserted that the balance of the convenience was in favour of the opposite party No. 1 and that there was no justification for entertaining the prayer for injunction as made in the suit and in the application for temporary injunction.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties by order dated 12.5.99 rejected the application for temporary injunction. The petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Karimganj being Misc. Appeal No. 15/99. The learned lower appellate Court also by the impagned and order dated 16.11.2001 dismissed the appeal. Hence Judgment this revision.

5. I have heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, o learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1. Mr. Mazumdar while assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned lower appellate Court has emphatically argued that none of the Courts below took note of the fact that the petitioners who were admittedly the heirs of Muslim Ali and Joyful Bibi were not made parties in Title









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top