Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1486
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Sri Jyotirmoy Deb, S/o Late Digendra Kumar Deb – Appellant
Versus
Smti Khiti Bala Das – Respondent
RSA 299 of 2014 With RSA 305 of 2014
Decided on : 15-09-2025
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Land Ownership Dispute
Act Referred
ASSAM MUNICIPAL ACT: S.326
Headnote
(B) Property Law - Ownership and title issues - The Court emphasizes that mere mutation does not confer title and that historical ownership declarations carry weight. (Paras 49-51)
Facts of the case:
Appellants appealed against the decree entitling the plaintiffs to ownership over land originally owned by predecessors, claiming illegal alteration of settlement records and disputing identification of the suit land. (Paras 4-11)
Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court correctly identified that the suit land was described adequately, relying on documentation and the principle of preponderance of evidence establishing plaintiffs' ownership. (Paras 27, 50-51)
Issues: The primary issues included adequate identification of the suit land, the impact of historical ownership, and the validity of mutation records. (Paras 29, 32, 49)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the First Appellate Court’s findings were not perverse but supported by credible evidence indicating the plaintiffs’ rightful ownership. (Paras 44-51)
Result: Regular Second Appeals dismissed with costs.
For the Appellant :Mr. Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate Mr. K. Bhattacharya, Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiya,
For the Respondent:Mr. S. P. Choudhury, Mr. T. R. Gogoi, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. defendant's claims and counterclaims. (Para 12 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. trial court's framework and issues. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. appellate court findings and decisions. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. arguments supporting the appeal. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. analysis of substantial questions of law. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 46) |
| 7. final decisions and conclusions. (Para 48 , 50 , 52) |
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No. 299/2014. Also heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiya, the learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No. 305/2014. Also heard Mr. S. P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the principal respondents as well as Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 8, 11 and 12.
2. Since common substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court in both the aforesaid Regular Second Appeals and both arise out of a common judgment, hence, this Court intends to dispose of the aforementioned Regular Second Appeals by this common judgment.
3. The aforementioned Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been filed by the appellants, impugning the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2014, passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj in the Title Appeal No. 1/2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (plaintiffs in the original Title Suit No. 1/2011) was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2013 and 29.11.2013 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in the Title Suit No. 1/2011 was set aside and reversed.
4. The facts relevant for consideration of the aforesaid Regular Second Appeals, in brief, are that the present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had filed a Title Suit (Title Suit No. 1/2011) against the present appellants and 11 others before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Karimganj praying for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land and for recovery of Khas possession along with other consequential relief. The said Title Suit was registered as Title Suit No. 1/2011.
5. The plaintiffs’ case before the Trial Court, in brief, was that one Aditya Charan Das, and Ram Prasad Das were the original owner in respect of the land described in Schedule-I of the plaint. Aditya Charan Das died issueless while Ram Prasad died leaving his only son Ramani Mohan Das. After the death of Ram Prasad Das, his son Ramani Mohan Das became the owner of Schedule-I land.
6. It has been stated in the plaint that the wife of Aditya Charan Das, namely, Smt. Gunamayee Dashi had acquired limited right to hold property for her lifetime in respect of the property left by her deceased husband, in accordance with the Hindu Law that was prevalent at that time. It is further averred in the plaint that subsequently, by gift dated 15.08.1913 or 16.08.1913 she had gifted her limited right and interest in respect of 50% share of the joint property left by her husband in favour of Ramani Mohan Das. Accordingly, Ramani Mohan Das became the sole and absolute owner of the Schedule land, including the other properties.
7. It is further pleaded in the plaint that over the northern portion of the Schedule-I land, Ramani Mohan Das had excavated a big tank which has been named as Ramani Sagar. The said tank is still in existence toward north-eastern direction of the Schedule-II land intervened by a path running over the land of Ramani Mohan Das. Ramani Mohan Das died leaving behind two sons, namely, Harendra Das and Hrishikesh Das. Both of them also died. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the heirs of Harendra Das and the proforma respondent Nos. 13 to 16 are the heirs of Hrishikesh Das.
8. With the passing of time the topography and feature of the land left by Ramani Mohan Das in and around the Schedule-I
