Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 885
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Mustt. Malekjan bewa and 2 Ors - Appellants
Versus
Md. Kumar Ali And Ors - Respondent
RSA 162 of 2010
Decided on : 18-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A. Biswas, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. R. Choudhury, Advocate
The plaint should be interpreted as a whole, allowing claims within the ambit of further reliefs under the Specific Relief Act, despite procedural objections raised by defendants.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Appeal against judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and affirming trial court's decree regarding land ownership and fraudulent sale deeds - Court finds that issue of misreading did not arise as the suit brought by plaintiffs was maintainable and prior arguments were without merit. (Paras 4, 20, 24, 27)
(B) Legal principles - The plaint must be read as a whole, not solely based on specific reliefs mentioned, and the reliefs sought fit within further reliefs under Section 34; misinterpretation of procedural rules does not invalidate claims when relief sought is evident in entirety. (Paras 23, 25)
(C) Issues - Main issues relate to the misapplication of Order II Rule 2 of CPC and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in determining the maintainability of the plaintiffs' suit. (Paras 5, 26)
Findings of Court:
The court concludes that the lower courts' decisions were not erroneous; the sale deeds in question were declared fraudulent against the plaintiffs' claims and did not grant rights to the defendants over relevant land. The decree was modified to clarify rights over Schedule B land.
Result: Appeal disposed of with modifications to decree.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed under cpc challenging earlier judgments. (Para 3) |
| 2. appellate process initiated under specific sections. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. overview of facts and scope of claimed rights. (Para 6) |
| 4. plaintiffs seek relief for land rights and injunction. (Para 7) |
| 5. details regarding ownership and fraudulent sale. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. issues framed concerning maintainability and rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. trial court's findings on plaintiffs' rights. (Para 16) |
| 8. trial court decreed suit in favor of plaintiffs. (Para 17) |
| 9. first appellate court's affirmation of trial decision. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 10. appellants’ arguments regarding sale deed and partition. (Para 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 11. court's observations on sale deed relevance. (Para 23 , 24 , 26) |
| 12. modification of decree regarding land rights. (Para 27) |
| 13. conclusion and orders resulting from appeal. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2a to 2 g, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. She further submitted that she has instruction(s) to appear on behalf of the newly substituted respondent Nos. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
3. 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 30.04.2010 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 37/2005 whereby the appeal was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2005 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 307/1999.
4. It is seen that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 20.08.2010 admitted the instant appeal by formulating a substantial question of law which reads as under:
“1. Whether the Appellate Court misread the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 34 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 and if so, what will be its effect? “
5. The question arises before this Court, as to whether, the said substantial question of law so formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court is involved in the present appeal.
6. For ascertaining the same, this Court briefly would like to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the present appeal.
7. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs had instituted a suit seeking various reliefs. Taking into account the substantial question of law so formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court finds it apposite to reproduce the reliefs which have been sought for by the plaintiffs in the said suit herein below:
“a. A decree declaring the plaintiffs right, title, interest and possession in the land of Schedule-B.
b. A decree declaring that the defendant Nos. 1 to 12 had no right to sell the entire land of Khatian No. 59 and that the sale deeds Nos. 1228, 1229 of Dhubri Sub-registration Office, dated 4.6.97, executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 20, 21, 22 purporting to transfer the entire land of Khatian No.58 are fraudulent illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs.
c. A decree declaring that by virtue of the sale deeds Nos. 1228, 1229 and 1232, defendants Nos. 20, 21 and 22 have acquired no right, title and interest in the land of Schedule- B.
d. A decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to get separate patta for the land of schedule-B in their names.
Alternately,
A decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition of the land of schedule-A as per provision of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation on the basis of the share of the plaintiffs already affected and possessed by them.
e. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their part of the land
