Tenancy rights established under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 take precedence over invalid claims based on improper sale deeds.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 09.05.2016 and decree dated 20.05.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 13/2013, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj, dated 03.04.2013 in Title Suit No. 388/2006 was upheld.

3. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the findings of both the courts below that the registered sale deed Ext. 5 (Ext. A) was null and void is correct after holding that the respondent/ plaintiff be a tenant under the Assam Temporary Settled Areas Tenancy Act, 1971?

2. Any other substantial question of law that may be formulated at the time of hearing of this second appeal.

4. During the pendency of this appeal, some of the appellants as well as some of the respondents died and their legal heirs are accordingly impleaded as appellants/respondents.

5. The basic ground for preferring this appeals is that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court did not consider that the suit is specifically barred and not maintainable under the various provisions of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’) and also barred under the Specific Relief Act. The learned Court below, while deciding the issue No.4, did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly decided the issue in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff admitted that he was a teacher by occupation and he was not a agriculturist but this aspect of the case was also not considered by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. More so, the respondent plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit land and also failed to prove that he was an occupant under Rakesh Ch. Das and without considering this aspect of the case, the judgment and decree was passed by the learned Trial Court below, arriving at a concurrent decision.

6. Mr. M. J. Quadir, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court did not consider the Regd. Sale Deed No.3042, dated 20.07.2006 (Ext.5 or Ext.A document), which has been challenged in this suit by the plaintiff, praying for cancellation of the sale deed. But the plaintiff/respondent did not pay the necessary Court Fee and in that aspect also, the suit ought to have been dismissed for want of necessary Court Fee. Further, he submitted that the findings of the learned Trial Court as well as of the learned Appellate Court in regards to the issue No.4 is illegal and perverse and for which also, the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below is liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Trial Court below did not make any discussion in regards to the DWs. and also did not consider the fact that the prayer of the present respondent as a plaintiff in the original suit was only to the extent of confirmation of possession over the suit land, wherein he was occupancy tenant.

7. Further, the appellants claimed that the suit land is purchased by their predecessor from the original pattadar/defendant No.4 by executing a sale deed and thus they had the right, title and interest over the suit land on the strength of purchase from the defendant No.4. He further submitted that even if the plaintiff/respondent is considered to be an occupancy tenant but for their right as occupancy tenant, the Court cannot pass the decr