Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J
Rina Mazumder And 18 Ors - Appellant
Versus
Dipak Kumar Mazumdar And Ors - Respondent
RSA 54 / 2010
Decided On : 28-01-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Sections 154(1)(m) and 23(2) - Appeal against First Appellate Court's decree - The plaintiffs sought declaration of right, title, and interest over land, alleging encroachment by defendants - The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit, declaring plaintiffs' ownership and ordering recovery of possession - The substantial questions of law included whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether it complied with procedural requirements - The court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the First Appellate Court's decision. (Paras 2 , 10 , 17 )
(B) Limitation - The court ruled that the issue of limitation was adequately addressed by the First Appellate Court, which found no adverse possession by the defendants. (Paras 12 , 13 )
(C) Procedural Compliance - The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently described the land in their plaint, and any procedural defects were curable. (Paras 14 , 16 )
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of land, claiming that the defendants had encroached upon their property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the First Appellate Court's ruling that the plaintiffs had rightful ownership and were entitled to recover possession of the land.
Issues: The main issues included whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether it complied with procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by limitation and that procedural defects were not sufficient to dismiss the suit, especially given the findings of the Amin Commission.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Ms. F. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr. J. Deka, 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 26.11.2008 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) in Title Appeal No.2/2002 whereby the Appeal filed was allowed thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Title Suit No.315/1993.
3. It is seen from the records that vide an order dated 21.06.2010, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the instant Appeal by formulating the three substantial questions of law which are reproduced therein under:
4. The question arises in the instant proceedings as to whether the three substantial questions of law which were formulated by this Court vide an order dated 21.04.2010 are involved in the instant Appeal. To appreciate and adjudicate the said aspect of the matter, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant Appeal.
5. From the records, it reveals that a suit being Title Suit No.315/1995 was filed by the plaintiffs claiming a declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the plot of land described in the Schedule to the plaint; for demarcation of the boundaries of the plaintiffs’ land in Dag No.41 of Patta No.694 thereby demarcating the said land from Dag No.35 of Patta No.695 and making division of the land as per the Dag Numbers; for delivery of khas possession of the boundary measuring about 6 ½ lechas to have been given to the defendant Nos.2, 3 & 4 by the defendant No.1 on the eastern boundary of Dag No.41 by executing the Sale Deed; for declaration that the Sale Deed so executed in favour of the defendant No.2, 3 & 4 are inoperative; for a decree to send to the Collector for making division of the boundaries according to the share of the land where the plaintiffs will get 1 katha 11 lechas of the land in Dag No.41 in Patta No.694 and the defendants would get land measuring 3 kathas 2 lechas covered by Dag No.35 of Patta No.695 etc.
6. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that the predecessors of the plaintiffs one Sukumar Muzundar as well as the defendant No.1 were brothers and had inherited certain property from their father one Late Rajani Kanta Mazumdar. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the predecessors of the plaintiffs and subsequently the plaintiffs were in possession of Dag No.41 of Patta No.694 which is the Schedule land. The land of the defendant No.1 was on the adjacent east of the plaintiffs’ land which is covered by Dag No.35 in Patta No.695 measuring 3 kathas 2 lechas. It was alleged that the defendant No.1 tried to obstruct the demarcation of the boundary in the year 1985 when the predecessors of the plaintiffs tried to demarcate the boundary of Dag No.41 and it resulted in filing of a suit by the defendant No.1 being Title Suit No.342/1985. The said suit, however, was dismissed for default vide an order dated 08.08.1991. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 sold some lan
The court affirmed that procedural defects in land ownership suits are curable and that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by limitation, allowing recovery of possession.
There can be appointment of Amin Commission even at appellate stage.
The courts upheld the plaintiff's occupancy rights over the disputed land, emphasizing the necessity of proper procedural adherence and the inadmissibility of unregistered documents for establishing ....
Point of Law : Merely giving suggestions and not adducing any evidence to substantiate the same, cannot entitle the plaintiff to a decree as prayed for.
The First Appellate Court must ensure substantial compliance with procedural norms, even if points for determination are not separately framed, provided all relevant issues are addressed.
The court ruled that framing additional issues after arguments is lawful if it aids in resolving the matter, and failure to substantiate claims regarding tenancy rights led to dismissal of the appeal....
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
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.
Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
