Court remanded cases for fresh adjudication due to errors in appreciating evidence and misapplication of legal provisions regarding title determination.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in both the Appeals and Mr. A. H. M. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents in both the Appeals.

2. Taking into account that the subject matter in both the Appeals are interconnected, this Court, by this common judgment and order, takes up the both the Appeals for disposal together.

3. RSA No.198/2016 challenges the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned First Appellate Court’) in Title Appeal No.14/2012 whereby the Appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2012 passed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi in Title Suit No.52/2005 was upheld.

4. RSA No.201/2016 challenges the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2016 passed in Title Appeal No.31/2013 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi in Title Suit No.72/2010 was interfered with and thereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein who is the defendant No.3 in Title Suit No.52/2005.

5. It is relevant to take note of that in both the Appeals, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had formulated a substantial question of law.

6. In RSA No.198/2016, the substantial question of law so formulated vide the order dated 31.08.2016 reads as under:-

1. Whether the findings and conclusions recorded by the court below as regards Issue No.2 and 3 are perverse to the evidence available on record?

7. In RSA No.201/2016 vide the order dated 31.08.2016, the following substantial question of law was formulated:-

1. Whether the findings and conclusions recorded by the court below as regards Issue Nos.4 and 5 are perverse to the evidence available on record?

8. The question arises as to whether the substantial questions of law which have been formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court as above noted are involved in both the instant Appeals. For ascertaining the same, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the two Appeals before this Court.

9. The appellant herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No.52/2005 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Hailakandi seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the land described in the Schedule to the plaint on the basis of the registered Deed of Sale No.2754 dated 24.08.2008; a permanent injunction at a time of disposal of the suit restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and also from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land; a decree for cost, etc.

10. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that Kutiram Das, Surendra Chandra Das, Sumanta Kumar Das, Sushanta Chandra Das, Hirendra Chandra Das and Haji Abdul Latif were the owners of various lands covered by Patta No.81. The said lands subsequently were both within Patta Nos.74 and 121 in the resettlement period. On 19.03.1976 by the registered Sale Deed No.2142, one Siddique Ali purchased 3 bighas 10 kathas 5 nd chattaks under 2 R.S. Patta Nos.121 and 74 from Kutiram Das, Surendra Chandra Das, Sumanta Kumar Das and Sushanta Chandra Das, and thus, he bec