IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
On The Death Of Sole Appellant Namely Biswanata Das, His Legal Heirs – Appellant
Versus
Gita Rani Saha D/o Lt. Girinda Saha – Respondent
RSA 67 of 2009
Decided on : 01-03-2024
CPC - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 - Dag No.571, Dag No.687, Dag No.570 - Sections 107 and 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and possession of land between Gita Rani Saha and Biswanath Das. Gita Rani Saha claimed that Biswanath Das had occupied her land and filed a suit for recovery of possession. Biswanath Das claimed to have a valid agreement for sale and sought specific performance of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Gita Rani Saha, which was upheld by the appellate court. However, the Regular Second Appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the agreement for sale and the interpretation of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Issues: The issues included the cause of action for the suit, maintainability of the suit, possession of the land, validity of the agreement for sale, and entitlement to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the first appellate court failed to draw up a point for determination and answer all issues, which was a violation of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a result, the first appellate court judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh judgment on all issues.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the first appellate court for a fresh judgment in compliance with the provisions of law.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel representing the appellants as well as Md. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whereby the judgment dated 16.01.2009 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge, Morigaon in Title Appeal No.13/2008, affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2008 passed by the court of learned Munsiff No.1, Morigaon in Title Suit No.06/06, is under challenge.
3. Late Girindra Saha was the owner of 3 plots of lands, each measuring 2 Bigha 2 Kathas 12 Lechas covered by Dag No.571; 4 Bighas 1 Katha 8 Lechas covered by Dag No.687 and 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 8 Lechas covered by Dag No.570.
4. During his lifetime, late Girindra Saha sold the entire 4 Bighas 1 Katha 8 Lechas covered by Dag No.687 to two persons namely, Haridas Routh and Khagendra Kumar Dey.
5. In the year 1995, Girindra Saha expired leaving behind his four daughters, namely-Gita Rani Saha, Maya Rani Saha, Chaya Rani Saha and Bina Rani Saha. Girindra Saha did not have any son.
6. After the death of Girindra Saha, his daughters Gita Rani Saha, Maya Rani Saha, Chaya Rani Saha and Bina Rani Saha acquired the lands. Girindra Saha had mutated their names in respect of the lands covered by Dag Nos.570 and 571.
7. It may be mentioned that the Dag Nos.570 and 571 are situated adjacent to each other. The daughters of Girindra Saha also divided the lands between themselves. Each got equal shares in the land.
8. In the meantime, Gita Rani Saha sold 1 Katha 1 lecha of land out of her share in Dag No.571 to one Smti. Sabita Rani Paul. Gita Rani Saha again sold 1 Katha of land out of her share in Dag No.571 to Smti. Kanan Bala Paul. Thereafter, Gita Rani Saha sold 1 Katha 2 Lecha of land out of her share in Dag No.571 to Nantu Dey. In this way, Gita Rani Saha sold a total of 3 Kathas 3 Lechas of land out of her share in Dag No.571. Now, she has no lands in her possession in Dag No.571.
9. In Dag No.570, Gita Rani Saha’s share was 1 Katha 17 Lechas of land. Out of this share, she gave up 5 Lechas of land for construction of a road. So, she was in actual possession of 1 Katha 12 Lechas of land in Dag No.570.
10. Upon that land, Gita Rani Saha used to reside. She used only one room of that house and remaining 2 rooms of the said house, were given on rent. At the time of filing of the suit, one of those rooms was not occupied by any tenants and it was lying vacant.
11. Shri Basudev Saha is the husband of Gita Rani Saha. He used to stay at Lumding, which is situated at a distance at about 150 kms. from the place where Gita Rani Saha resided. Shri Basudev Saha was doing business at Lumding and at the house at Jagiroad Gita Rani Saha used to stay with her daughter.
12. In the month of December, 2004, Gita Rani Saha had gone to Lumding for medical treatment of her daughter. On 30.12.2004, while Gita Rani Saha was at Lumding, she was informed by his sisters Chaya Rani Saha and Bina Rani Saha that the defendant (appellant in this case) Biswanath Das had occupied 1 Katha of her land and have gathered materials for construction of a house over that land. Immediately, Gita Rani Saha and her family set out for Jagiroad and reached Jagiroad on 31.12.2004.
13. They confronted Biswanath Das on that day. It is alleged that Biswanath Das had heated altercations with them and also tried to attack Gita Rani Saha and her family.
14. Therefore, Gita Rani Saha immediately filed the applications under Sections 107 and 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Executive Magistrate’s court. The learned Magistrate restrained Biswanath Das and his family from entering into the aforesaid portion of land. But Biswanath Das allegedly violated the said order and continued to occupy the land.
15. Ultimately, Gita Rani Saha filed the suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Morigaon praying for decrees declaring her right, title and interest over the said plot of l
B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy
Malluru Mallappa v. Kuruvathappa
Shasidhar v. Ashwini Uma Mathad
AI
The judgment emphasizes the mandatory nature of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the appellate court to draw up points for determination, record decisions with reasons,....
An appellate court cannot set aside a trial court's decree favoring a party without a challenge from the opposing party, ensuring the principle of finality in unchallenged judgments.
The principle of res judicata applies when the same parties have litigated substantially the same issue in a previous suit, barring re-litigation of those issues.
The principle of res judicata applies where previous judgments on the same issue bind parties, regardless of claims involving part of the land. Judicial findings must reflect conscious application to....
The Appellate Court erred in denying recovery of possession despite confirming the plaintiff's title, emphasizing that possession without title is unlawful.
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.