GAUHATI HIGH COURT
T.Nanda Kumar Singh, J.
Tamizur Rahman Borbhuiya and Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Ors. -Resopndent
SAO No. 5 of 1999
Decided On : 26-02-2008
EVIDENCE - LAND DISPUTE - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68, Section 67, Section 45, Section 47 - The court discussed the proof of signature and handwriting of a person alleged to have signed on written documents. The court referred to the case law to establish the requirements for proving the genuineness of a document and the admissibility of evidence. The court concluded that the appellant-plaintiff could prove the registered sale deeds and the deed dated 6.6.1981.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership title, possessory title, and recovery of possession of certain lands. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant-plaintiff. The respondent-defendants appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate court failed to consider all the issues and passed a cryptic judgment and decree. The court held that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were not only perverse but also cryptic. The court set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court with a modification.
Issues: The issues included the proof of ownership and possessory title of the appellant-plaintiff, the admissibility of evidence, and the duty of the first appellate court to consider all issues and provide reasons for reversing the findings of the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the first appellate court to critically analyze all issues, provide reasons for reversing the findings of the trial court, and consider all evidence. The court also discussed the requirements for proving the genuineness of a document and the admissibility of evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court with a modification regarding the possessory right of the appellant-plaintiff over certain land.
2. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and also learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1, State of Assam and Mr. P. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
3. Neglecting un-necessary details, the concise facts which would be sufficient for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 207 of 1988 in the Court of Munsiff No. 2, Cachar, Silchar for declaration of the ownership title in respect of the patta land described in Schedule-1 to the plaint, declaration of possessory title in respect of the khas land described in Schedule-2 to the plaint and also for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land described in Schedule-3 to the plaint. The case of the appellant-plaintiff pleaded in the plaint in Title Suit No.207 of 1988 are that the patta land described in Schedule-1 to the plaint measuring 3 kathas 15 chattaks covered by Dag No. 116/890 of 2nd R.S. Patta No. 120 was originally belonged to one Bhulua Rabidas who sold the same to one Shri Bipin Bhor by executing a registered sale deed dated 11.11.1976 [Ext-3] and delivered the possession of the said land to him. Shri Bipin Bhor died leaving behind two sons, namely - Shri Sibdhari Bhor and Sri Sib Narayan Bhor. Shri Sibdhari Bhor and Sri Sib Narayan Bhor sold the suit land at Schedule-1 to the plaint to the appellant-plaintiff by executing the sale deed dated 25.7.1983 [Ext-1] and delivered the possession thereof to the plaintiff-appellant.
4. The further pleaded case of the appellant-plaintiff was that the suit land described in Schedule-2 to the plaint measuring 5 kathas covered by khas Dag No. 1037, Mauja Chuto Dudhpati, District Cachar was originally belonged to Dudhpati Tea Estate and after closure of the said tea garden it was made khas land. But the possession of the said Government khas land at Schedule-2 was with the ex-labourer of the said garden namely Shri Sibdhari Bhor who sold the schedule-2 land to the appellant-plaintiff by executing a deed dated 6.6.1981 (Ext-4). Shri Sibdhari Bhor also delivered the possession of the schedule-2 land to the appellant-petitioner on the very day of executing the said deed dated 6.6.1981 (Ext-4).
5. During the year 1985, the father of the respondents/defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and the husband of the respondent/defendant No. 6 initiated a proceeding under section 107, Cr.PC against the appellant-plaintiff by claiming a right of way through the Schedule-2 land. But the said proceeding was dropped after hearing the appellant-plaintiff. The defendant Nos. 2 to 6 in collusion with the interested officers of the respondent-defendant No. 1, State of Assam had started an Encroachment Case No. 93 of 1986 against the appellant-plaintiff in respect of the Schedule-2 land. In that case, the appellant-plaintiff was arrested illegally and was forcibly dispossessed the land described in Schedule-3 of the plaint, which is a part of the land, described in Schedule-2 of the plaint. Over and above, the defendants-respondents tried to carve out a path over the land described in Schedule-3 of the plaint by cutting earth, felling of trees and also by filing up water well. Accordingly, the appellant/respondent filed the Title Suit No. 207 of 1988 after issuing notice under section 80 of the CPC to the respondent/defendant No. 1, State of Assam and the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for reliefs : -
(1) Declaration of ownership title of the appellant/plaintiff over the land described in schedule-1 to the plaint.
(2) Possessory title of the appellant/plaintiff over t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.