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

2022 Supreme(Gau) 196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
SUNITA JALAN @ SUNITA AGARWALLA D/O- SRI GIRDHARILAL AGARWALLA - Appellant
Vs.
MANOJ JALAN AND ANR S/O- LATE RAM NIWAS JALAN - Respondent
CRP(IO) No. 213 of 2019
Decided On : 31-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MR. P P DUTTA
For The Respondent: MR. B BARUAH

Point of Law : Procedural and technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 - Recovery of khas possession – Plaintiff has instituted a suit which has been registered and numbered before the Court - Said suit is for declaration of right, title and interest of plaintiff over Schedule A and B; for recovery of khas possession of same; for perpetual injunction; compensation per diem with effect - In the said suit the specific case of plaintiff is that father-in-law of plaintiff sold a plot land together with pucca houses for a consideration vide a deed of sale Deed - It is the further case of the plaintiff that relationship between plaintiff and her husband became very bad for which plaintiff had filed a divorce suit in the Court of District Judge at Dibrugarh, against her husband that is one - Whether Presiding Officer of a court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties.

Finding of the Court:

Court should not forget fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is foundation of justice and court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute - Court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of documents under sub-rule (3) - Coming to present case, defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing documents along with written statement - They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage - It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit – Court are of the view that courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents For the purpose of adducing the said documents as evidence, petitioner is further permitted to file additional evidence on affidavit and also to call for relevant witnesses for proving said documents - Defendants/Respondents herein shall be permitted to cross-examine petitioner as well as the other official witnesses who appear to prove the said documents - With observations and directions instant petition stands disposed of.

Result: Petition is disposed of

JUDGEMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 07.01.2019 passed in Title Suit No. 126/2012 by the Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh, whereby the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 14 was rejected.

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the petitioner as plaintiff has instituted a suit which has been registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 126/2012 before the Court of the Munsiff at Dibrugarh. The said suit is for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over Schedule A and B; for recovery of khas possession of the same; for perpetual injunction; compensation of Rs. 100/-per diem with effect from 17.08.2012 etc. In the said suit the specific case of the plaintiff is that on 14.06.1999 the father-in-law of the plaintiff sold a plot land measuring 0 Bigha 3 Kathas 15 Lechas covered by Dag No. 426 under Periodic Patta No. 74 situated at Moran Town, A.T. Road, P.O. Moranhat, P.S. and Mouza Moran in the District of Dibrugarh, Assam together with pucca houses for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-vide a deed of sale bearing Deed No. 5101 dated 14.06.1999. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the relationship between the plaintiff and her husband became very bad for which the plaintiff had filed a divorce suit on 03.08.2007 in the Court of the District Judge at Dibrugarh, Assam against her husband that is one Raj Kumar Jalan. The said divorce case was registered and numbered as T.S. (D) No. 52/2007 and on 30.06.2010 the Court of the Addl. District Judge, FTC, Dibrugarh dissolved the marriage between the plaintiff and her husband by a decree of divorce. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 17.08.2012 at around 2 p.m.-3 p.m., the defendant No. 1 broke open the lock of the house premises of the plaintiff more fully described in Schedule A and trespassed therein and kept the house premises under his possession along with the household goods which have been most specifically described in Schedule B. Thereupon, the defendant No. 1 brought the defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 to the house premises and are forcefully residing thereon. The plaintiff thereupon initiated various criminal proceedings and also the instant suit seeking declaration of right, title and interest in respect to the properties described in Schedule A and B and other reliefs as already have been stated hereinabove. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the Schedule A land in respect to which the plaintiff has sought for declaration of right, title and interest as well as for recovery of khas possession is the land conveyed to the plaintiff by her father-in-law vide the Registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 5101 Sl. No. 1980 dated 14.06.1999.

4. The defendants who are the respondents herein filed their written statement-cum-counter claim. In the written statement-cum-counter claim the respondents have taken a specific stand that the Registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 5101 Sl. No. 1980 dated 14.06.1999 is a forged and a fabricated document. It was the specific stand in the said written statement that the Sale Deed bearing No. 5101 Sl. No. 1980 dated 14.06.1999 is a forged and a fabricated document as late Ram Nibas Jalan (the vendor of the plaintiff) had expired on 02.06.1999 prior to the alleged execution of the sale deed dated 14.06.1999. The other details of the written statement being not relevant for the purpose of the instant case, this Court is not referring to the same. It may, however, be relevant to take note of that the death certificate of the said late Ram Nibas Jalan was not filed at the time of filing the written statement by the Defendants/Respondents. In the counter claim the respondents herein sought for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff and also for cancellation of the Sale Deed No

        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