Point of Law : Code is for the petitioner/resister to prove his/her right, title and/or interest in the property in dispute upon being able to prove, an order would be passed in terms with Order XXI Rule 103 of The Code which shall be a decree.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree by the first Appellate Court dated 18.02.2015 in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 2012, as well as the Order dated 24.07.2018, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 41 of 2015 whereby, the Review Application seeking review of the Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2015 was also dismissed.

3. Before deciding as to whether there is any substantial question of law which arises, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the instant case. The respondents herein as Plaintiff had filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 272 of 2003 seeking specific performance of a contract in respect to the suit property as described in the Schedule, and in the alternative for recovery of the consideration amount along with compensation in the said suit. It was the case of the Plaintiff that the defendant therein Gauri Kanta Das (since deceased) who is the predecessor in interest of the proforma Respondents herein had entered into a registered agreement for sale of 1 Bigha 2 Katha and 10 lechas land covered by Dag No. 320 of K.P. Patta No. 96 of village-Mainasundari, Mouza-Modertola for a valuable consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. It was the further case of the Plaintiff that initially at the time when the registered agreement for sale was entered into, i.e., on 08.10.2001, an amount of Rs. 8,000/-was paid as earnest money with a condition that the remaining amount of the consideration would be paid at the time of the sale. However, on account of urgent need of money of the said, late Gauri Kanta Das the remaining balance amount of Rs. 12,000/-was paid on 21.12.2001 which was duly received by the late Gauri Kanta Das and also had executed an unregistered sale deed and thereafter handed over possession to the Respondent herein. Thereupon, certain disputes arose as the Defendant was not executing and registering the Deed of Sale and had dispossessed the Respondent herein from the suit land, therefore, the Respondent as Plaintiff instituted the suit which was registered and numbered as Title Suit 272/2003. In the said suit, the defendant, i.e., late Gauri Kanta Das did not appear. The Trial Court, i.e., the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 Kamrup, Guwahati, by order dated 30.11.2004 decreed the suit ex-parte in favor of the Plaintiff therein. Pursuant to the said decree being passed the Sale Deed was registered in favor of the plaintiff/the respondent herein.

4. Subsequent thereto, the application under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short, The Code) was filed by the Appellant herein stating interaliathat the Respondent herein had instituted the Title Suit No. 272/2003 in collusion with the late Gauri Kanta Das and without arraying the Appellant as a defendant in the said suit. It was the case of the Appellant in the said application that originally 3 Bighas of land (of which the suit land is a part) was owned by one Jogeswar Rajbangshi and Gauri Kanta Das jointly. The said Gauri Kanta Das, thereafter, sold his share to Jogeswar Rajbangshi by way of registered Sale Deed bearing Deed No. 9227/1974 dated 18.11.1974; and accordingly, the said Jogeswar Rajbangshi became the owner of the entire 3 Bighas of land. It was also mentioned that the said Jogeswar Rajbangshi and Gauri Kanta Das were ryots in respect to the aforesaid total land of 3 Bighasbut later on, on the strength of the aforesaid Sale Deed, by way of purchase the entire 3 Bighas came to be owned and possessed by Jogeswar Rajbangshi. The appellant had purchased 1 Bigha of land from the total land from Jogeswar Rajbangshi by way of a registered Sale Deed No. 847/04 dated 28.10.2004 and came into the possession of the same and started to reside therein by constructing his house there. It was also allege