Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 971 (GAU)

Nurul Islam Choudhury v. Md. Taj Uddin

2015-08-06

SUMAN SHYAM

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants/plaintiffs had instituted Title Suit No.115/1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Karimganj, inter alia, praying for a decree declaring their right, title and interest along with possession in respect of land measuring .10 decimal covered by dag No.820 of Khatian No.797 of Sutarkandi mouza under Kushiarpar Settlement described in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiffs had also prayed for a declaratory decree to the effect that they are entitled to settlement of the suit land from the State Government in case the land is held to belong to Public Works Department and also for a declaration that the document of settlement issued in favour of defendant No.6 is illegal and hence, liable to be cancelled. The plaintiffs’ case is that their predecessor, Moqbol Ali was the original owner in possession of the suit land described in the schedule along with contiguous land in northern and western side covered by dag Nos.879 and 874 of the said mouza. The plaintiffs claim to have been in possession of the suit land being used as a pathway for about 37/38 years and also claims to have constructed a shop house over some part of the land. The plaintiffs have also stated, in an apparent contradiction from their pleaded stand, that the suit land was recorded in the name of Public Works Department (PWD) of the State of Assam. Accordingly, they had developed the suit land by making earth filling and on the northern side of it they constructed a shop house and, thereafter, constructed pucca structure on the western side of it and they have been using the suit land as front side space of their shop. It has been further stated that based on a petition dated 27.08.1997 made by the defendant Md. Taj Uddin the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karimganj had registered a case bearing No.624(M)/97 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and attached the suit land under Section 146 Cr.P.C. In connection with the said proceeding the Settlement Officer, Karimganj had submitted a report showing that the suit land was registered in the name of PWD, State of Assam. Subsequently, another report was submitted by the Settlement Officer, Karimganj showing that the suit land have been recorded in the name of defendant No.2, Muslim Uddin. Subsequently, another report was submitted by the Settlement Officer, Karimganj showing that the suit land have been recorded in the name of defendant No.2, Muslim Uddin. Being emboldened by such illegal recording of name of the defendants, they have been circulating that they will dispossess the plaintiffs forcefully from the suit land and will create documents thereby disputing the ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. Situated thus, the plaintiffs were compelled to institute the aforesaid Title Suit. 2. The defendant Nos.1 and 4 had filed a joint written statement contesting the suit, inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action, defect of parties, suit being barred by limitation, suit being barred under the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence and on other grounds. The defendants while denying the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land had stated that the suit land originally stood in the name of Government of Assam in the department of PWD. During the field survey under the present settlement operation, the old dag Nos.801, 803, 820, 919 and 1104 have been merged in the old dag No.801 and as such the area had been increased and the total area became 11.12 Acres and new dag No.32 was created. Out of the aforesaid area of 11.12 Acres covered by old dag No.802 of Mouza Sutarkandi a plot of land measuring 0.10 Acre, i.e. the suit land, has been found in the possession of Muslim Uddin, son of Late Mudaris Ali. Accordingly, a new dag No.109/1502 under Katcha Patta was created in respect of the suit land measuring 0.10 Acre. The defendants claimed right over the said land and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit further taking the plea that the suit itself is barred under the provisions of Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886. On the basis of an application made by defendant No.6 before the Settlement Officer, Karimganj for giving settlement of the suit land on the ground that the same has been under the use and occupation of the said defendant, vide order dated 07.08.1998 the name of the defendant No.6 stands recorded by creating a new dag No.109/1502 under Katcha Patta No.260. The suit of the plaintiff is, therefore, barred under Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886. 3. The suit of the plaintiff is, therefore, barred under Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed a 7 issues, which are as follows :- “1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties? 4. Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get relief as prayed for ? 6. Whether the order dated 7.8.98 passed by defendant No.3 giving settlement of the suit land to the defendant is illegal and liable to be cancelled? 7. Whether the suit land is correctly and properly described in the schedule of the plaint?” 4. After going through the materials available on record the learned trial Court had decided the Issue Nos.4, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. The conclusion of the learned trial Court appears to be based on the fact that since the plaintiffs are claiming title and possession in respect of the adjacent plots of land on the northern and western part being the contiguous land covered by dag Nos.879 and 820, hence the suit land also belongs to the plaintiff. Such conclusion, however, is not based on any document of title produced by the plaintiffs in support of their claim. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs stood decreed by the trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Karimganj decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 and 2, as appellants, had instituted Title Appeal No.56/2002 in the Court of Adhoc Additional District Judge, Karimganj. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court as regards Issue No.4 thereby holding that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove and establish their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court as regards Issue No.4 thereby holding that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove and establish their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. The learned lower Appellate Court had further held that there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to institute the suit, thereby reversing the finding of the trial Court as regards Issue No.1. As regards Issue No.2 the learned lower Appellate Court was of the opinion that since the basic claim of the plaintiffs would be dependent on the legality and validity of the order of settlement made in favour of the defendant No.6, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs would be barred under Section 154(1)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 and, therefore, the same would not be maintainable in the eye of law. While discussing the aforesaid issues the learned lower Appellate Court had also gone into the question of entitlement of the plaintiffs to get the decree as prayed for. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of reversal dated 29.07.2004 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.56/2002 the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants which had been admitted to formal hearing by framing the following substantial questions of law :- “1) Whether an appellate judgment without even noticing the issues framed by the learned trial court is substantial question of law? 2) Whether in a suit filed for declaration of right, title, interest and possession, the bar of Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 is attracted. 3) Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate court in respect of issue No.1 and issue No.4 are perverse to the evidence on record.” Subsequently, by the order dated 15.06.2015 this Court had framed one more additional substantial question of law, which is as follows :- “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court contravenes the mandatory requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC rendering it a nullity in the eye of law?” 7. I have heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also heard Mr. H. K. Deka, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned Advocate, representing the respondent Nos.1 and 2. I have heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also heard Mr. H. K. Deka, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned Advocate, representing the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. G. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, represents respondent Nos.3 to 6. 8. Ms. B. Sarma submits that the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed by the learned trial Court on the basis of a factual finding recorded by the Court to the effect that the plaintiffs were in possession of the adjacent contiguous land on the northern and western side covered by dag Nos.879 and 874 of mouza Sutardkandi. She further submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 23(1) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, the Settlement Officer could not have issued an order of settlement in respect of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.6. The plaintiffs’ suit being one for declaration of title, the same could not have been held to be barred under Section 154(1) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations. She submits that the learned First Appellate Court failed to consider the evidentiary value of Ext-3, katcha patta pertaining to dag Nos.879/109 of mouza Sutardkandi standing in the name of predecessor of the plaintiffs. According to her, the said dag No.879/109 was carved out from dag No.179 which stood in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs. 9. Ms. Sarma further submits that the trial Court had delivered judgments by recording reasons in respect of each of the issues. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court has not discussed all the issues despite the fact that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have been reversed by the First Appellate Court nor has the point of determination been indicated by the Court below. In such view of the matter, submits Ms. Sarma, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court stands vitiated for being in contravention of the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31, CPC and hence is liable to be set aside by this Court. 10. Per contra, Mr. In such view of the matter, submits Ms. Sarma, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court stands vitiated for being in contravention of the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31, CPC and hence is liable to be set aside by this Court. 10. Per contra, Mr. H. K. Deka, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that the plaintiffs’ suit itself has been founded on the basis of contradictory statement inasmuch as the plaintiffs are not even sure where the land belong to their predecessor or the same is recorded in the name of PWD, Govt. of Assam. He submits that mutually contradictory reliefs have been sought for by the plaintiffs. Mr. Deka submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is speculative in nature without there being any definite and precise claim of title over the suit land. Such being the position, the plaintiffs’ suit has been rightly held to be barred under Section 154(1) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations. 11. By placing reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Daulatram Lakhani vs. The State of Assam and others reported in [1989] 1 GLR 131 Mr. Deka submits that although a suit based on title would not be completely barred under Section 154(1) of the Assam Land and Regulations, yet, in order to meet the bar of the said provision the plaintiffs must be able to make out a genuine case by asserting title by means of a proper pleading. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have failed to plead the foundational fact so as to set up a genuine claim of title in the suit. Mr. Deka further submits that the provisions of Rule 23(1) of the Settlement Rules is applicable in cases of new periodic patta lease and the same does not have any application in case of settlement granted in form of katcha patta in favour of the defendant No.6. He further submits that from the materials available on record it would be apparent that the learned Lower Appellate Court has dealt with all the material issues in substance, if not in form, thereby recording a finding leading to the dismissal of the suit. Such finding of fact being based on evidence on record, the smae does not call for any interference at the stage of Second Appeal. Such finding of fact being based on evidence on record, the smae does not call for any interference at the stage of Second Appeal. He submits that since there is substantial compliance of the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC in respect of the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court, hence, the substantial questions of law urged by the appellants does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. I have considered the submissions made by and on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record. On a scrutiny of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court what can be seen is that the learned Court of first instance has decided the Issue No.4 in favour of the plaintiffs merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions by ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove and establish their title over the suit land by adducing cogent evidence in support of their claim over the land. As would be apparent from the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed title in respect of a plot of land measuring 0.10 decimal covered by dag No.820 of mouza Sutardkandi. However, there is no finding of fact recorded by the trial Court holding that the plaintiffs have been able to prove and establish their title over the suit land on the basis of documentary evidence. On the contrary, it appears that the learned trial Court had proceeded on the basis of an assumption that since the adjacent contiguous land in the northern and western part covered by dag No.879 and 874 are recorded in the name of predecessor of the plaintiffs and since the settlement issued in favour of defendant No.6 was found to be illegal, hence the title of the plaintiffs have been declared in respect of the suit land. 13. It is settled law that in order to be entitled to a decree declaring the right, title and interest in respect of an immoveable property the plaintiff must succeed in proving and establishing his title on the strength of his own case and the plaintiff cannot rely upon the weakness of the case of the defendant. As has been indicated herein before, the plaintiffs have not been able to produce any evidence to prove and establish their title and possession over the suit land. As has been indicated herein before, the plaintiffs have not been able to produce any evidence to prove and establish their title and possession over the suit land. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs are not even sure if the suit land is recorded in the name of PWD, Assam and has therefore prayed for an alternative decree in protection of their claim. Since the suit of the plaintiffs is basically one for declaration of title the same cannot be sustained unless the plaintiff comes up with a categorical pleading asserting their right, title and interest over the suit land. 14. In the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Daulatram Lakhani (supra) this Court had categorically held that in a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title over the land by questioning an order coming within the purview of Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, the plaintiff must succeed in asserting a genuine title and a mere pretext of having title would not make the suit maintainable in view of the bar created under Section 154(1)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations. For the reasons indicated herein before, the plaintiffs not having been able to project a clear case of title over the suit land, the suit itself was barred under Section 154 of the Regulations. As such, the learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly decided the Issue No.2 by holding the suit filed by the plaintiff as barred. 15. A perusal of the pleadings contained in para 5 of the plaint goes to show that the basic allegation of the plaintiff leading to the cause of action for filing the suit is that the defendants have been circulating that they will dispossess the plaintiffs and would create document. Such assertion of fact has not been substantiated by any overt and covert act allegedly done by the defendants. During the trial the plaintiffs have not been able to establish and substantiate the aforesaid allegation made in the plaint. Be that as it may. Mere allegation that the defendants are circulating to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land, in my opinion, cannot give rise to the cause of action for filing a suit unless such circulation is alleged to be followed up by any overt and covert action on the part of the defendants. Be that as it may. Mere allegation that the defendants are circulating to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land, in my opinion, cannot give rise to the cause of action for filing a suit unless such circulation is alleged to be followed up by any overt and covert action on the part of the defendants. The learned Court below has categorically held that there is absolutely nothing to show in the plaint that the defendant No.6 tried to dispossess by constructing house over the suit land and as such the facts constituting the cause of action for filing the suit were not present in the instant case. That apart, the cause of action as stated in the deposition of PW 1 was also completely different from that mentioned in the plaint. To maintain a civil action by filing a suit the plaintiff must succeed in pleading such pertinent facts so as to clearly indicate the cause of action for filing the suit. However, in the instant case, a perusal of the plaint does not give any indication with any degree of clarity or precision as regards the existence of any cause of action for filing the suit. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court as regards Issue No.1 holding that the plaintiffs did not have any cause of action for instituting the suit. 16. Next, coming to the question of objection raised by the appellants on the ground of non-compliance of the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, as has been indicated herein before, the key issue having a material bearing on the outcome of the plaintiffs’ suit would be the Issue No.4 which has been adequately discussed by the Court below. The other issues have also been touched upon by the lower Appellate Court although the same has not been done by formulating specific points of determination. It is no doubt the correct proposition of law that in case of a judgment and decree of reversal the Appellate Court is required to render the decision in strict compliance with the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. 17. As has been mentioned herein before, the learned Lower Appellate Court has decided the Issue No.1 against the appellants/plaintiffs holding that there was no cause of action for filing the suit. 17. As has been mentioned herein before, the learned Lower Appellate Court has decided the Issue No.1 against the appellants/plaintiffs holding that there was no cause of action for filing the suit. That apart, the Court below while answering Issue No.4 had also gone on to substantively deal with the question of entitlement of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs as well as their entitlement to the reliefs prayed for in the suit. From a scrutiny of the judgment and order rendered by the learned Lower Appellate Court I find that there is substantive compliance with the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC in the instant case. That apart, once it is held that the plaintiffs did not have any cause of action for filing the suit, the outcome in respect of other issues becomes inconsequential. Moreover, a detail examination of the materials on record goes to clearly establish that the plaintiffs have not been able to lead any evidence to prove and establish their claim of title over the suit land. In view of the above, this is not a fit case where the judgment and order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court warrants any interference merely because of formal non-compliance with the requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. 18. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that this Second Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same must fail. The substantial questions of law urged by the appellants would stand answered accordingly. 19. In the result, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. However, the parties to bear their own costs.