IMPORTANT POINT
The admissibility of secondary evidence requires adherence to specific legal procedures, and the principle of res-judicata applies when the same issues have been previously adjudicated.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. T. U. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant in both the appeals. This Court had earlier heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent in the instant appeal.

2. It is seen that this Court vide an order dated 03.06.2009 admitted RSA No.53/2009 by formulating 3 (three) substantial questions of law which reads as under :

“1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned court below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of his possession on the basis of his previous possession over the suit land in holding that the sale deeds i.e. Exhibits 4 and 5 by which the plaintiff/appellant purchased and got possession of the suit land are secondary evidence and as such not admissible in evidence are perverse and unsustainable in law?

2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned court below holding that payment of rent is required to be made to the landlord even after Khatian was issued to the vendor of the plaintiff under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act are perverse and unsustainable in law?

3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellant Court holding that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by res-judicata and thereby decreeing the counter claim filed by the respondent/defendant without taking consideration of the respective issues in both the suits and particularly the issue of recovery of possession of the suit land by the plaintiff/appellant on the basis of his previous possession over the suit land are perverse and unsustainable in law?”

3. In RSA No.54/2009, there is no separate question of law formulated. However, while hearing the matter on 20.06.2024, this Court had observed that the substantial questions of law which have been formulated in RSA No.53/2009 would cover RSA No.54/2009.

4. For deciding both the appeals which are inter-connected, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of both the appeals before this Court.

5. The appellant in both the appeals as plaintiff had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.24/2006. The facts leading to the filing of the said suit were that one Sukhram Urang was a tenant under one Chanda Singha (since deceased). It was averred that there was a Khatian No.53 issued as a proof of his permanent non-evictable tenant. Thereupon, after the death of the said Sukhram Urang, one Shri Krishna Urang stepped into his shoes and was in peaceful possession by constructing houses. The said Shri Krishna Urang thereupon purchased the right over the suit land from one Shri Mukti Singha who was the descendant of Late Chanda Singha on 03.03.2004 vide a registered Deed No.515/533 and became the owner of the suit land. On the same date, another Sale Deed was executed by the said Shri Krishna Urang bearing Deed No.518/536 thereby transferring the right over the suit land in favour of the Plantiff.

6. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant used to reside in the northern boundary of the suit land which was intervened by a passage to the house of the plaintiff. On 11.04.2004, the defendant along with others trespassed into the said suit land and dispossessed the plaintiff. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land; for recovery of khas possession by breaking the lock and by evicting the defendant or any unauthorized person/persons who may be found in illegal occupation of the suit land.

7. Pursuant to the filing of the said suit, the defendant filed a written statement stating inter alia that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous suit inasmuch as the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest did not have any right over the suit land. It was stated that the defendant and one Shri Rabia Urang had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Big