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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (KOHIMA BENCH)
A.K. Goswami, J.
Jame Masjid Committee, Dimapur - Petitioner
Versus
Ahmad Ali Khan S/o Late Mahammad Ali and others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 7(K) of 2011
Decided On : 18-01-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T.B. Jamir.
For the Respondents: T. Ao.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Sections 151,9 115 Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) - Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Section 154 (a) and (c) - Regulation of 1886 - Section 154(1)(a) & (c) and Section 154(2) - Nagaland (3rd amendment) Act, 1984 - Administration of Justice and Police Rules, 1937 - Rule 29(1) read with Rule 34 - Title Suit - Lawful pattadars of Jamebandi - Permanent injunction - possession - Peaceful ownership - Enjoyment of the suit properties - Petition challenging order passed by learned District Judge, in F. A. No. I/11 and order in CMC No in Title Suit No. is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of Constitution of India - By order, an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code filed by petitioner/defendant No. I for rejection of plaint was rejected - However, in order, it is reflected that application was filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (b) read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code - By order, learned District Judge accepted preliminary objection raised by plaintiffs that appeal filed under Rule 29(1) read with Rule 34 of Administration of Justice and Police Rules, 1937, as amended by Nagaland Act, 1984 - Referred to as Rules of 1937, is not maintainable and accordingly, had dismissed appeal, granting liberty to petitioners/appellants from agitating issue under appropriate provisions of law - Respondent Nos. I to 9 filed suit numbered as Title Suit 1/10 in Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division - Praying, inter alia, for a decree declaring settlement order issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, and order passed - Deputy Commissioner, in favour of petitioner as without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void – Held, It was also noted therein that plaintiffs/appellants had failed to establish their title over suit land by adducing any evidence and accordingly, had dismissed second appeal - As noticed earlier, in plaint, it was pleaded that order was passed without any notice to pattadars and plaintiffs had prayed for a decree, amongst others, that said order be set aside as being without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void - Plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree for declaration of title and ownership of an area of land measuring 1 katha 18 lechas and standing building thereon – Court law laid down by this Court as noticed herein above, this Court is unable to accept contention advanced by learned Counsel for petitioner that suit is not maintainable in view of Section 154 of Regulation of 1886 - In view of foregoing discussions, this Court is of considered opinion that learned trial Court was justified in passing order rejecting application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint and therefore, no interference with said order is called for - Petition is dismissed

ORDER :

A.K. Goswami, J.

This petition, challenging the order dated 7-4-2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Dimapur in F. A. No. I/11 and the order dated 8-12-2010 in CMC No. 16/10 in Title Suit No. 1/10, is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. By order dated 8-12-2010, an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner/defendant No. I for rejection of the plaint was rejected. However, in the order, it is reflected that the application was filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (b) read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. By the order dated 7-4-2011, the learned District Judge accepted the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiffs that the appeal filed under Rule 29(1) read with Rule 34 of the Administration of Justice and Police Rules, 1937, as amended by Nagaland (3rd amendment) Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1937, is not maintainable and accordingly, had dismissed the appeal, granting liberty to the petitioners/appellants from agitating the issue under appropriate provisions of law.

3. The respondent Nos. I to 9 filed the suit numbered as Title Suit 1/10 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dimapur, praying, inter alia, for a decree declaring the settlement order dated 17-12-1991 issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and the order dated 20-7-2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in favour of the petitioner as without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void. In the suit, the plaintiffs also prayed for a decree:

"(i) Setting aside the impugned remarks entered in Jamebandi bearing Patta No. 157, Dag No. 203, Block No. 6, Mauza No. 1 of Dimapur town and title records relating thereto as well as the impugned Jamebandi bearing Patta No. 157/589, Dag No. 203, Block No. 6, Mauza No. 1 of Dimapur town for an area of 0-1-18 Ls issued in favour of Jame Masjid Committee on 15-12-2004 as illegal, null and void;

(ii) Setting aside the impugned Deed of gift dated 9-3-1991 bearing registration No. SD-17/91 dated 22-4-1991 as null and void;

(iii) Declaration of title and ownership that the plaintiffs are the lawful pattadars of Jamebandi bearing Patta No. 157, Dag No. 203, Block No. 6, Mauza No. I of Dimapur town for an area of 0-1-18 Ls and the standing building thereon by restoring the validity and effectiveness of the said Jamebandi;

(iv) Restoration of the peaceful ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit properties by issuing permanent injunction against the defendants restraining and prohibiting them from any kind of interference in the peaceful ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs;

(v) Recovery of the entire mesne profits; arising from the suit properties by way of house rent collections and such other enjoyments with effect from month of May, 2006,' till the ownership and enjoyment of the suit properties are restored to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 12,155/- per month, and/or at such future enhanced rates and amounts;

(vi) For such further and other relief including cost of the suit as the Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper."

4. It is relevant to state that the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 1/10 along with others had also filed Title Suit No. 1/08 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) praying for the following reliefs:

"1. That the impugned Deed of the Gift dated 9-3-1991 be set aside as illegal, null and void in the eye of law and the same does not confer any right to any parties/persons;

2. That the entries in respect of Dag N6.203 in patta No. 157 of the impugned Jamebandies in ANNEXURES - "M-1" and "M-2" and the entire impugned Jamebandi in ANNEXURE-"M3" are also illegal, null and void in the eye of law and all these impugned Jamebandies confer no rights whatsoever to the defendants;

3. That the purported Order No. REV-9/91-D/8735, Dt/-17-12-1991 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, is a






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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