The instant second appeal on remand by the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 5129 of 2001 restoring the case to the file of this Court after setting aside the judgment and order dated 7.1.2000 passed in Second Appeal No. 8/94 directing for a fresh decision after framing substantial question of law and accordingly in exercise of power under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for adjudication of the case afresh in presence of the contesting parties viz.,- (1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and (2)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation?

2. Before determining the lis between the parties it would be appropriate to refer the provision of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('Act 1963' for short) alongwith Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963:

Section 31- When cancellation may be ordered- (1)Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury; may sue to have it adjudgedvoid or voidable;and the Court may, in its discretion so adjudge it and ordered it to be delivered up and cancelled.

(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 ( 16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the Officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such Officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.

Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963:

Description of SuitPeriod of limitationTime from which period Begins to run.

Article 59

To cancel or set three yearsWhen the facts entitling aside an instrumentthe plaintiff to have the or decree or for theinstrument or decree rescission of contractcancelled or set asideor the contract rescinded first become known to him.

3. The appellant, herein is the defendant in Title Suit No.14/88 on the file of the learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.8.93 passed in Title Appeal No. 4/92 by the learned Assistant District Judge, Golaghat whereby and whereunder the learned Assistant District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6.7.92 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat in Title Suit No. 14/88.

4. The facts of the case in a nutshell is summarized hereinbelow:

One Smti. Mismai Begum @ Smti. Afzuman Nessa alongwith her daughter Smti. Motimai Begum have brought a suit being Title Suit No.14/88 in the Court of Munsiff No.1, Golaghat arraying 9 (nine) persons as party defendant. Out of 9 (nine) party defendants, Sri Faiz Ahmed, Sri Habibur Rahman, Sri Safiur Rahman and Tileswar Saikia were arrayed as main defendants whereas the defendant Nos. 5 to 9 who are own sons of plaintiff No.1 have been arrayed as proforma defendants. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Late Sheikh Md. Hussain whereas the plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Late Sheikh Md. Hussain in the suit. The plaintiffs have prayed the following reliefs:

(a) For a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 23.6.88 passed in Title Suit No. 12 of 1987 by the learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat is not legal and valid and the same is inoperative under the law,

(b) For a declaration that registered sale deed No.3758 dated 19.9.67 in connection with the land mentioned in schedule 'ka' of the plaint, shown as executed by Sk. Md. Hussain, husband of the plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 is not valid sale deed and for cancellation of the same being forged and obtained fraudulently.

(c) For a declaration that on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed the defendant No.4 has not acquired any right, title and interest on the land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint;

(d) For permanent injunction;

(e) For recovery of khas possession in respect of 'Ka' schedule land mentioned in the schedule of the pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document