Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 465 (GAU)

Ranjit Saikia v. Union of India and Ors.

2015-04-21

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2015
1. Heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Also heard Ms. B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India; and Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Title Appeal No. 3/2001, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Tezpur, in Title Suit No. 45/1997. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for a permanent mandatory injunction for correction of the name of the village as "Kathobari", instead of "Rangchalia Kathobari" as appeared in the Electoral Rolls of 1993, in respect of No. 75 Sootea Legislative Assembly Constituency -- Part 49 -Polling Station No. 49 -- Majgaon Primary School, by deleting the prefix "Rangchalia". 4. The appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 13.2.2004 on the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the learned court below was under legal obligation to pass a decree of mandatory injunction in terms of the admission made by the defendants/respondents, and (ii) Whether an admission in a civil suit would be controverted and re-assailed by adducing evidence contrary to the Indian Evidence Act." 5. Mr. Baruah has submitted that there was no admission as such in the written statement filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as the averments made to the effect that they will not have any objection to incorporation of the name as "Kathobari" in place of "Rangchalia Kathobari" cannot be construed to be an admission. In that perspective learned counsel submits that the substantial question of law No. 2 will not be begging an answer in this appeal and he would confine his argument only to the effect that the courts below were under legal obligation to pass a decree of mandatory injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case without relying on the so-called admission. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that they would have no objection to permit Mr. Baruah to argue in the context of the alleged failure, on the part of the courts below to pass a decree of mandatory injunction on the basis of the materials on record. 7. Mr. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that they would have no objection to permit Mr. Baruah to argue in the context of the alleged failure, on the part of the courts below to pass a decree of mandatory injunction on the basis of the materials on record. 7. Mr. Baruah has submitted that the village in question was earlier known as "Kathobari" and, subsequently, the same was illegally christened as "Rangchalia Kathobari" at the instance of some members of Rangchalia clan and the addresses of many institutions, which were recorded to be situated at "Rangchalia Kathobari", had subsequently been changed to "Kathobari" at the instance of the plaintiff and, viewed in that perspective, the learned courts below committed error of law in not granting mandatory injunction as prayed for. Learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors., (1990) 2 SCC117. Mr. Baruah has submitted that though the suit was filed for a permanent mandatory injunction, no application, however, for any interim mandatory injunction was filed. 8. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that there is concurrent finding of fact that in the Electoral Rolls of 1989 also, the name of the village in question was referred to as "Rangchalia Kathobari" and the suit came to be filed only in the year 1997 questioning the Electoral Rolls of 1993. The plaintiff and the people of the locality were exercising their right of franchise accordingly. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstance of the case, no case for grant of mandatory injunction is made out. 9.1 have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The learned trial court, on the basis of the pleadings, had framed four issues, namely : (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the name of the village in question in the present suit is actually village Kathobari? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? (iv) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? 11. The learned trial court recorded that the name of the village in question was recorded in the Electoral Rolls of 1989 as "Rangchalia Kathobari". The learned trial court took the view that the suit was not 17. (iv) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? 11. The learned trial court recorded that the name of the village in question was recorded in the Electoral Rolls of 1989 as "Rangchalia Kathobari". The learned trial court took the view that the suit was not 17. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. 18. Send back the LCR.