Court emphasized the necessity of determining ownership shares in property disputes in accordance with procedural rules to maintain legality in partition suits.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned First Appellate Court') dated 24.02.2016 whereby the Title Appeal No.11/2015 was dismissed and the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No.2, Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court) in Title Suit No.87/2010 dated 17.07.2015 was affirmed.

3. It is seen that the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide the Order dated 13.05.2016 had admitted the instant appeal by formulating two substantial questions of law which being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in view of bar under Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 in view of absence of the prayer of declaration of title?

2. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are vitiated for non-compliance of the provision of Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

4. The respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff had instituted the suit being Title Suit No.87/2010 before the learned Trial Court seeking a decree for imperfect partition in respect to the land of the plaintiff's share; a precept be issued to the Collector on the basis of the preliminary decree and thereupon to pass a final decree. The plaintiff also sought for a decree for handing over the possession of his share by the Amin Commission. Apart from that, the plaintiff sought for a decree for declaration of his title in respect to his share of the suit land.

5. The case of the plaintiff in short is that one Taiyab Ali Laskar who was the father of the plaintiff as well as the predecessor-in-interest of the principal defendant No.1 to 5 and the proforma defendant Nos.6 to 9 was the owner of 6 bighas of land covered by Dag No.78/490 of 2nd R.S. Patta No.114 of Mouza-Dholai Molai Part-I. The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff along with the principal defendants and the proforma defendants were in joint possession of 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks of land which has been specifically described in the Schedule to the plaint and the plaintiff has been requesting the principal defendants as well as the proforma defendants for partition since the month of January, 2009. However, both the principal defendants and the proforma defendants did not adhere to the said request, and it is under such circumstances, the suit was filed.

6. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 filed their written statement stating inter-alia that out of the 6 bighas of land which was owned by Late Taiyab Ali Laskar, he had sold 1 bigha 1 katha 11 chattaks of land by a registered Deed of Sale No. 401 dated 04.07.1991 in favour of one Ismail Ali. Thereupon, Late Taiyab Ali Laskar sold 2 bighas of land in Dag No.78/490 and 1 bigha 12 kathas 12 chattaks in Dag No.490/555 to the defendant No.1 vide the registered Sale Deed No.1356 dated 31.12.1997. Apart from that, another plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 5 kathas 9 chattaks which was left out and was sold to the defendant No.2 vide an unregistered Deed of Sale dated 30.03.1998, and therefore, there was no land left for partition. It is under such circumstances prayed that the suit was required to be dismissed.

7. An additional written statement was also filed by the defendant No.1 to 5 after the amendment of the plaint wherein it was denied that the plaintiff along with the principal defendants and the proforma defe