Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 147 (GAU)

Abdul Gani v. Al Haji Abdul Matin Choudhury

2014-02-05

C.R.SARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Perused the impugned judgments and orders, passed by both the courts below. This second appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below. The appellants, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No. 82 of 2008 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1 Karimganj, seeking a decree for right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession and permanent injunction on the basis of title derived from a sale deed, purported to be executed by one Basanti Balla. The defendants contested the plaintiffs' claim. The claim of the defendants was that they obtained right, title and interest in respect of the suit property by virtue of decree, passed in Title Suit No. 29/1982 and T.S. No. 30/1982. 2. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that the vendor of the plaintiffs had no saleable right in respect of the suit property. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs, as appellants preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Karimganj and the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj by his judgment and decree, dated 30.09.2013, passed in TA No. 50 of 2012, dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Munsiff, Karimganj. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below, the appellants have come up with this appeal. According to the appellants, Smti. Basanti Balla i.e. vendor of the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property from one Horendra Kumar Nath and Shri Kumar Nath had purchased the Suit property from one Shri Sudir Kumar. The courts below held that the Sudir Kumar had no saleable right to transfer the suit property. The courts below came to the findings that the defendants had filed Title suit No. 29 of 1982 and Title Suit No. 30/1982 against the state of Assam, challenging the act of demolition done by the District Administration and that they got the decree in respect of the suit land. The certified copy of the preliminary decree, passed in T.S. No. 29/1982 and the certified copy of the preliminary decree, passed in T.S. No. 30/1982 have been exhibited as Ext. The certified copy of the preliminary decree, passed in T.S. No. 29/1982 and the certified copy of the preliminary decree, passed in T.S. No. 30/1982 have been exhibited as Ext. Nos. 'H' and 'I' respectively and the courts below held that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim regarding title. It has been observed, by both the courts below that on the basis of Ext. Nos. 'H' and 'I', the defendants acquired right, title and interest in respect of the suit land. The said decrees passed in favour of the defendants have not been challenged in this case. The questions whether the vendor of the plaintiffs had saleable right or not and whether the dependents acquired right, title and interest in respect of the suit property vide judgment and decree, passed in T.S. No. 29/1982 and T.S. No. 30/1982 are mixed questions of law and facts. Both the said questions have been decided in favour of the defendants by the courts below, by rendering concurrent findings. Considering the discussion and decision rendered by the appellate court in its judgment and decree, more particularly in paragraph Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22, I find that both the courts below have considered the materials on record and arrived at a findings that the plaintiff failed to acquire right, title and interest on the suit land by virtue of their purchase from Basanti Bala. The said decisions being decision based on fact. I find no reason to interfere at this stage. In view of the above, I find no substantial question of law for determination. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.