Allowed

Mustt. Moymona Khatun and 7 Ors. v. Musstt. Ochika Khatun and Ors.

Gauhati HC8 May 2024RSA/153/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a title suit judgment, the High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's decree that ignored the issuance of a Kheraj Patta in the appellants' favour, citing recent Supreme Court authority on the weight of final revenue orders regarding title disputes, and restored the Trial Court's decree.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the First Appellate Court set aside and quashed; the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2008 of the Trial Court restored. Costs quantified at Rs.20,000

Mustt. Moymona Khatun and 7 Ors. Vs Musstt. Ochika… — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/14

¶2

GAHC010007372011

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : RSA/153/2011

¶5

MUSTT. MOYMONA KHATUN AND 7 ORS W/O LATE BAHEJ ALI, ON THE DEATH OF BAHEJ ALI HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶6

2: MD ZAKIR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE BAHEJ ALI

¶7

3: MD ZAHANGIR ALAM SON OF LATE BAHEJ ALI

¶8

4: MD MIJANUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE BAHEJ ALI

¶9

5: MUSTT. ANAWARA KHATUN DAUGHTER OF LATE BAHEJ ALI

¶10

6: MUSTT. NOOR NEHAR DAUGHTER OF LATE BAHEJ ALI

¶11

7: MD ABDUL BAREK SON OF LATE ABESH ALI

¶12

8: MD SUMED ALI SON OF LATE ABESH ALI ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR MOUZA-TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR BARPETA ASSA

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

MUSSTT. OCHIKA KHATUN AND ORS W/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR, HEIRS OF LATE ABDUL JABBAR

¶15

Page No.# 2/14

¶16

1.2:KHUSBAR ALI

¶17

SON OF LATE ABDUL JABBAR

¶18

1.3:ON THE DEATH OF JAYNAL ABDIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY

¶19

1.3.1:SABIRAN NESSA W/O LATE JAYNAL ABDIN R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI PS NIJ RAMPUR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781319

¶20

1.3.2:JAMIRAN NESSA D/O LATE JAYNAL ABDIN R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI PS NIJ RAMPUR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781319

¶21

1.3.3:JAHIDA KHATON D/O LATE JAYNAL ABDIN R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI PS NIJ RAMPUR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781319

¶22

1.3.4:ROFIKUL ISLAM S/O LATE JAYNAL ABDIN R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI PS NIJ RAMPUR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781319

¶23

1.3.5:SOFIKUL ISLAM S/O LATE JAYNAL ABDIN R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI PS NIJ RAMPUR

¶24

Page No.# 3/14

¶25

DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781319

¶26

1.3.6:BOBUDUL ISLAM S/O LATE JAYNAL ABDIN R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI PS NIJ RAMPUR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781319

¶27

1.4:ACHIMUDDIN SON OF LATE ABDUL JABBAR

¶28

1.5:ON THE DEATH OF SUNPHOOL NESSA HER LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY-

¶29

1.5.1:MR MUNNAF ALI H/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶30

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶31

1.5.2:SHARIF UDDIN S/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶32

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321 1.5.3:ASHAN ALI S/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶33

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶34

1.5.4:ANOWAR HUSSAIN

¶35

Page No.# 4/14

¶36

S/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶37

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶38

1.5.5:SANOWAR HUSSAIN S/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶39

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶40

1.5.6:BAHARUL ISLAM S/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶41

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶42

1.5.7:BAHARUL ISLAM

¶43

S/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶44

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶45

1.5.8:MISS MUNJAN KHATUN D/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶46

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶47

1.5.9:ABIDA KHATUN D/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶48

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM

¶49

Page No.# 5/14

¶50

P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶51

1.5.10:CHANDRA BHANU S/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶52

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶53

1.5.11:MISS HAWSHI BHANU D/O MUSTT. SUNPHOOL NESSA

¶54

R/O VILLAGE GARALIPAM P.S.- BONGUGRI DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN CODE 781321

¶55

1.6:MANIKJAN DAUGHTER OF LATE ABDUL JABBAR WIFE OF A. BAREK

¶56

1.7:RUPBHANU DAUGHTER OF LATE ABDUL JABBAR WIFE OF MAJAR ALI

¶57

1.8:SABIRAN NESSA

¶58

DAUGHTER OF LATE ABDUL JABBAR WIFE OF SOLEMAN

¶59

2:ON THE DEATH OF AFAZUDDIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY

¶60

2.1:STRUCK OFF

¶61

VIDE HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DATED 16.11.2022 PASSED IN I.A.(C) NO. 2183/2022

¶62

2.2:SHONA BANU

¶63

D/O LATE AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR

¶64

Page No.# 6/14

¶65

DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM. 2.3:JAMAL UDDIN S/O LATE AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM. 2.4:MORTU BANU D/O LATE AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM. 2.5:SHORJU BANU D/O LATE AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM. 2.6:TOBAHED ALI S/O LATE AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM. 2.7:SHOKJAN KHATUN D/O LATE AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM. 2.8:FUL BANU D/O LATE AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR

¶66

Page No.# 7/14

¶67

DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM.

¶68

2.9:SAIFUL ISLAM D/O LATE AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR MOUZA TITAPANI P.S. BAGHBAR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM

¶69

Advocate for the appellants : Mr. N Dhar Mr. S Chakraborty

¶70

Advocate for the respondents : Mr. N Haque

¶71

Mr. SK Deori

¶72

B E F O R E

¶73

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶74

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶75

09.05.2024

¶76

Heard Mr. N Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. N Haque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶77

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, the Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge Barpeta (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘learned First Appellate Court’) in Title Appeal No.22/2008,

¶78

Page No.# 8/14

¶79

whereby the appeal was allowed thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘learned Trial Court) in Title Suit No.1/2007.

¶80

This Court vide the order dated 17.11.2011 admitted the instant appeal by formulating the following substantial question of law:

¶81

“Whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court ignoring the evidence of the witnesses, namely, PW2, PW3 and PW5 and the documentary evidence, exhibit K in the case record, consequent thereto, a decree passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs on the basis of a perverse finding is unsustainable in law?

¶82

The question, therefore, arises in the instant proceeding is as to whether the substantial question of law so formulated by this Court on 17.11.2011 is duly involved in the instant appeal. For ascertaining the said aspect of the matter, this Court finds it very relevant to take note of the facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal in brief:

¶83

The respondents herein as a plaintiffs instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1/2007 in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta. The claim of the plaintiff in the said suit is that one Harendra Nath Deva Adhikari , Late Abdul Zabbar and Afazuddin were the pattaders and possesors of various plots of land which have been described in Schedules A, B, C and D. It was stated in the plaint that during the last settlement operation, the Government of Assam had issued the annual patta over the Schudule A, B, C and D lands in the names of Harendra Nath Deva Adhikari , Late Abdul Zabbar and Afazuddin. During the

¶84

Page No.# 9/14

¶85

continuation of the annual patta, application was filed before the SDC, Kalgachia for converting the Schedule A land into a periodic patta. In terms with the said application, the SDC Kalgachia passed the order dated 13.05.1967 converting the A Schedule land into periodic in the name of Harendra Nath Deva Adhikari, Late Abdul Zaffar and Afajuddin. However, the Schedule B, C and D lands remained as annual patta lands. It was also mentioned that the shares of Harendra Nath Deva Adhikari in respect of the Schedule A land was sold in favour of Late Abdul Zabbar and Afajuddin by a registered deed of sale No.4330/67 dated 01.06.1967 and possession was duly delivered to them. However, in respect to the Schedule B, C and D lands orally the shares of Harendra Nath Deva Adhikari was transferred for an amount of Rs.90/- in favour of Late Abdul Zabbar and Afajuddin along with delivery of possession. The plaintiffs claimed that during the lifetime, Abdul Zabbar and Afajuddin were the absolute owners of Schedule A, B, C and D lands. Upon their death, the plaintiffs continued to exercise such rights. It was mentioned that on 08.10.2006, the defendants, who had lands adjacent to the plaintiffs, dispossessed the plaintiffs from the Schedule B, C and D lands and also a portion of the Schedule A land. This portion of the Schedule A land has been specifically described in Schedule A(1). It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed claiming declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule A, B, C and D lands; for declaration that the defendants did not have title over the Schedule A, B, C and D lands; for recovery of khas possession in respect of Schedule A(1), B, C and D lands and for declaration that the order passed by the Circle Officer Kalgachia dated 27.09.1995 in connection with Misc.Petition No.134/95-96 and the order dated 18.04.1995-96, in connection with Misc.Petition No.790/95-96 was illegal, null and void, and not sustainable in law

¶86

Page No.# 10/14

¶87

and, accordingly, for issuance of a precept. This Court at this stage finds it pertinent to take note of that the order of the Circle Officer Kalgachia was challenged. However, neither the State of Assam, nor the Circle Officer was made a party to the said suit.

¶88

Upon filing of the suit, the defendants filed a joint written statement, stating inter alia that the suit land stood in the name of Harendra Nath Deva Adhikari and possession was transferred in favour of the defendant’s father Abesh Ali about 40 years ago. It was also mentioned that the suit land was mutated in the name of defendants on 19.08.1996 with reference to Misc. Petition No.790/95-96 passed by the order of the Circle Officer Kalgachia for a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 3 kahta 4 lessas under dag No.295, KP Patta No.61 of A(1) Schedule land of the suit. On the other hand, annual Dag Nos.296, 297, 298 which are Schedule B, C and D lands were in the name of Harendra Nath Deva Adhikari and he transferred the land to the possession of the defendants about 40 years ago and the defendants thereupon mutated their names in the record of rights. It was also mentioned that before filing of the suit, the dags in the annual patta was converted into a kheraj patta in terms with the Order No.C.P.No.5/06-07 by the Circle Officer Kalgachia dated 20.07.2006 in favour of the defendants after receiving the premium (value of the land) from the defendants with local verification of the suit land and mutated the land records in the name of the defendants and at present the said annual patta dags were converted into Kheraj Patta No.356 Village Rampur, Mouza -Titapani in the District of Barpeta, Assam. It is relevant to take note of that this Kheraj Patta No.376 so issued in favour of the defendants has been exhibited as Ext.K. The defendants completely denied the case of the plaintiffs

¶89

Page No.# 11/14

¶90

and contended that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the Schedule B. C and D lands.

¶91

On the basis of the said pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 5(five) issues. Issue No.2 related to as to whether the suit was barred by limitation; Issue No.3 related to as to whether the plaintiffs had right, title and interest over the suit land and issue No.4 was as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for khas possession over Schedule A(1), B, C and D lands. While deciding the issues No.3, the learned Trial Court came to an opinion that the defendants had right, title and interest over the Schedule B, C, D lands, in view of the issuance of the patta in their names and the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the Schedule A land, including the Schedule A(1) land, which is a part of the Schedule A land. In view of the discussion in respect to issue No.3, the issue No.4 was decided holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to recovery of possession of Schedule A(1) land and not in respect of Schedule B, C and D lands. The said judgment and decree was passed on 28.05.2008.

¶92

Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.22/2008. The learned First Appellate Court reversed the decision in issue No.3 and decided it in favour of the plaintiffs, however, in doing so, did not take into account that the periodic patta was issued in favour of the defendants which is the Ext. K. Under such circumstances, the appeal was decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶93

Page No.# 12/14

¶94

Being aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed which has been admitted by this Court vide the order dated 17.11.2011 by formulating the substantial question of law as noted above.

¶95

This Court has duly heard Mr. N Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and also Mr. N Haque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and has given due consideration of their respective submissions.

¶96

During the course of the hearing, it transpires that the Kheraj Patta which had been issued in favour of the defendants had not been put to challenge. Certain orders of the Circle Officer had been put to challenge. However, neither the State of Assam nor the Circle Officer were made parties to the suit.

¶97

It is the also relevant at this stage to take note of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 725 , wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the rights recognized by the Consolidation Authority in terms with Consolidation Act observed that under the Scheme of Consolidation Act, the Consolidation Authorities are fully competent to deal with the issue of title, over the land under Consolidation, except under certain contingencies. It was further observed that the Consolidation Authorities have the powers of the Civil Court to decide the question of title, subject to judicial review by the High Court under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court most pertinently observed in the said judgment that revenue entries are not

¶98

Page No.# 13/14

¶99

documents of title and do not ordinarily confer or extinguish title in the land, but, nonetheless, where the Revenue Authorities or the Consolidation Authorities are competent to determine the rights of the parties, by exercising powers akin to the Civil Courts, any order or entry made by such authorities, which attains finality, has to be respected and given effect to.

¶100

In the instant case, it would be seen that pursuant to the order passed in C.P.No.5/06-07 dated 20.07.2006, the State Revenue authorities had accepted the premium from the defendants and granted Kheraj Patta No.356 in favour of the defendants in respect to Schedule B, C, and D lands.

¶101

This Court further finds it very pertinent to observe that although the plaintiffs claimed that they had rights over the Schedule B, C and D lands on the basis of some annual patta being issued, but with the issuance of the periodic patta, in respect to same land in favour of the defendants by the Revenue Authorities of the State of Assam and the same not being challenged in accordance with law, the rights, if any, in terms of the annual patta had ceased to exist.

¶102

Under such circumstances, the learned First Appellate Court was not justified in deciding the issue No.3 in favour of the plaintiffs, in so far as the Schedule B, C and D lands, that too, without taking into account the Ext. K. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court suffers from perversity, inasmuch as, the learned First Appellate Court had failed to take into account the said aspect of the matter, which, if

¶103

Page No.# 14/14

¶104

taken into account would have changed the course of the proceedings. Consequently, the question of law which has been formulated by this Court by the order dated 17.11.2011 is involved in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.22/2008 is set aside and quashed and the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.1/2007 is restored.

¶105

The instant appeal stands allowed with costs quantified @ Rs.20,000/- for the instant proceedings. In addition to that, the appellants herein would be entitled to the costs in the First Appeal only.

¶106

Registry shall return the LCR forthwith.

¶107

JUDGE

¶108

Comparing Assistant

Mustt. Moymona Khatun and 7 Ors. v. Musstt. Ochika Khatun and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustt. Moymona Khatun and 7 Ors. v. Musstt. Ochika Khatun and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sirajul Islam Vs Firoza Begum and 4 Ors.

Sri Swapan Kumar Kanu and Anr. Vs Smti Parvati Bala Kanu and 6 Ors.

Swapan Kumar Kanu and Anr. Vs Jagadish Shah and Anr.

Saraswati Devi and Ors. Vs Ram Babu Singh and Ors.

Gopal Ghosh Vs Surajit Gope

Gopal Ghosh Vs Surajit Gope