IMPORTANT POINT
The appeal was dismissed as no substantial questions of law were involved; the First Appellate Court's decision to uphold the suit's maintainability was affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ”the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 02/2003 whereby the appeal was allowed, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 26/1995.

3. It is seen that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 09.10.2012 admitted the instant appeal by formulating 3 (three) substantial questions of law which are reproduced herein under:

“(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC?

(iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation?”

4. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that the present appeal is not at the instance of the defendant No. 7 i.e. one Ram Govind Yadav (since deceased) or his legal representatives. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 1. This aspect assumes importance as would be seen at the later stages of the instant judgment.

5. The question which arises in the instant appeal, as to whether, the 3 (three) substantial questions of law so formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 09.10.2012 are involved in the instant appeal. For deciding the same, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

6. The plaintiff No. 10 admittedly is an unregistered body and there is no denial to the fact that the plaintiff No. 10 is constituted by the citizens of Grahambazar in particular of the Dibrugarh Town. As the plaintiff No. 10 is an unregistered body, the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 9 claiming themselves to be the Executive Committee of the plaintiff No. 10 had instituted the said suit which was initially registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 9/1990. Taking into account that the plaintiff No. 10 is an unregistered body at the time of filing of the suit, an application was filed under Order I Rule 8 of the Code which was registered as petition No. 733/1990 seeking permission to institute the suit against the defendants as well as all other persons interested in the plaintiff No. 10 i.e. the Grahambazaar Puja Committee. The learned Trial Court vide an order dated 02.08.1990 allowed the said application filed under Order I Rule 8 of the Code and the plaintiffs were directed for publishing the notice of the suit in the Daily ‘Janambhumi’ newspaper which was duly done. Therefore, the suit was a suit in the representative capacity.

7. The case of the plaintiffs in the said suit is that a plot of land admeasuring 3 Kathas 15 ½ Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 436 and 437 part and included in Periodic Patta No. 3 of Grahambazar of Mouza Dibrugarh Town was purchased in the name of the plaintiff No. 10 from its vendors vide the registered deed of sale bearing deed No. 328 of 1968 dated 09.02.1968. On the said suit land, the plaintiff No. 10 which was a committee continued to perform the pujas and other functions till the year 1986. However, subsequently the defendant Nos. 1 and 7, as alleged in the plaint, with a mala fide object of taking control over the suit land started using a part of the said suit land for stacking hay for the cattle on temporary basis and also constructed a temporary shed. The members of the plaintiff No. 10 at that relevant point of time did not find the actions of the said defendants objectionable.