Ramesh Barman and 5 Ors. Vs Md. Sirajuddin Ahmed

Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. A. C. Sarmah, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on

¶30

Page No.# 3/10

¶31

behalf of the respondent.

¶32

The instant proceedings is initiated by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No. 1, Nalbari in Title Suit No.65/2016 whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff holding inter-alia that the plaintiff was entitled for restoration of possession of the land described in Schedule-3 of the plaint from the defendants in terms with Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act of 1963’).

¶33

The challenge so made to the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2023 passed in Title Suit No.65/2016 is primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court had exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.

¶34

To ascertain as regards the legality of the impugned judgment and decree, it is relevant to take note of the relevant facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

¶35

The respondent herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 seeking restoration of possession of the Schedule-3 land from the defendants. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.65/2016. In the said suit, the respondent herein as plaintiff claimed that he along with his brothers were the owners of a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 1 katha on the basis of a

¶36

Page No.# 4/10

¶37

purchase made vide a registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.781 dated 27.09.1994. The said land purchased is covered by Dag No.914 of KP Patta No.445 of village-Amani under Police Station-Belsor under Mouza-Khetri (Dharmapur) in the district of Nalbari, Assam. The said land has been specifically described in Schedule-1 to the plaint. It has been further mentioned that in addition to the Schedule-1 land, the plaintiff had also entered into possession of an adjoining plot of land admeasuring 2 bighas 1 katha 16 lechas in same Dag and Patta as the same was lying as a “pitani” (marshy land). The said plot of land had been specifically described in Schedule-3 to the plaint. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession of the Schedule-1 and the Schedule-3 lands which together admeasures 3 bighas 2 kathas 16 lechas and the same was more specifically described in Schedule-2 to the plaint. It was also averred in the plaint that in the year 1995-96, the Revenue Authorities sold in auction the total land of the suit Patta for non-payment of the revenue by the pattadars. One Sri Bapuram Barman had purchased the total land of the suit Patta and the Dag in Auction Sale Case No.88/95-96. However, the said person could not enter into possession. Be that as it may, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Sri Bapuram Barman for purchase of the suit Patta for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,56,640/-, and in that regard, had applied for sale permission. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after obtaining the permission when the plaintiff went to Sri Bapuram Barman for purchase, the said Sri Bapuram Barman informed the plaintiff that the Schedule-3

¶38

Page No.# 5/10

¶39

land was sold to the petitioners herein by the registered Deed of Sale bearing Sale Deed No.1/16 dated 01.01.2016. In that regard, the plaintiff has also filed a suit challenging the said Deed of Sale. Be that it may, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession, but to the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiff, on 23.05.2016 at around 11:00 AM, some unknown persons equipped with dangerous weapons such as lathis, daos etc. forcefully entered into the Schedule-3 plot of land and dispossessed the plaintiff. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed on 13.07.2016 before the Court of the Munsiff No.1, Nalbari seeking restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Act of 1963.

¶40

The defendants to the said suit filed their written statement on 02.11.2016. In the said written statement, it was mentioned that Sri Bapuram Barman was in possession of the entire suit Patta. It was also denied that Sri Bapuram Barman proposed to sell the suit Patta in favour of the plaintiff and had executed the Bainapatra. Further, it was mentioned that on 27.09.1997, Bapuram Barman purchased the entire plot of land in Auction Sale Case No.88/95-96 and since then he has been possessing that land absolutely being the absolute owner and possessor. Sri Bapuram Barman thereafter approached the defendants for selling a plot of land which has been more specifically described in Schedule-3 to the plaint and the defendants purchased the said plot of land by executing a registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.1/2016 on 01.01.2016, and thereafter, their names were mutated in the revenue

¶41

Page No.# 6/10

¶42

records. In addition to that, the defendants further stated that the Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.1/2016 was a valid one and the defendants have been peacefully possessing the land more specifically described in Schedule-3 to the plaint. Further to that, at paragraph No.6 of the written statement, the defendants denied that on 23.05.2016, the answering defendants with some unknown persons entered into the land described in Schedule-3 and dispossessed the plaintiff. It is however important to note that there is nothing mentioned in the written statement when the petitioners entered into the possession of the land.

¶43

On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 6 issues which are reproduced herein under:-

¶44

Whether there is any cause of action?

¶45

Whether the suit is maintainable?

¶46

Whether the plaintiff is illegally dispossessed from the suit land?

¶47

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief u/s 6 of Specific Relief Act?

¶48

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for?

¶49

To what other relief(s) the parties are entitled to?

¶50

The plaintiff had adduced the evidence of six witnesses out of which five witnesses were cross-examined by the defendants. In

¶51

Page No.# 7/10

¶52

addition to that, the plaintiff had also exhibited various documents. The defendants, however, did not adduce any evidence.

¶53

The learned Trial Court decided the Issue Nos.3, 4 & 5 together and on the basis of the evidence came to a categorical opinion that the plaintiff was in possession of the Schedule-3 land as on 23.05.2016, and on that very day, he was dispossessed by the defendants without following the due process. The said findings of the learned Trial Court was primarily based upon the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW6. On the basis of the decision so arrived in respect to the Issue Nos.3, 4 & 5, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It is under such circumstances, the instant revision application has been filed invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code.

¶54

In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the submissions so made by the learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties.

¶55

Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court committed an error in not taking into consideration the Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.781/1994 dated 27.09.1994 which the plaintiff had exhibited as Ext. No.1 in the proper perspective. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Schedule to the said Deed of Sale would show that on the west, the name of the defendant

¶56

Page No.# 8/10

¶57

Ramesh Barman. He therefore submitted that as on 27.09.1994, the defendant No.1 was in possession of the land which has been described in Schedule-3 to the plaint and this very aspect of the matter having not been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court a perversity had occasioned in the impugned judgment and decree. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is nothing mentioned as to how the plaintiff had entered into the Schedule-3 land. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that without the plaintiff pleading and proving that he had entered into the Schedule-3 land, the question of passing a decree for restoration of possession does not arise.

¶58

Per contra, Mr. A. C. Sarma, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the pleadings as well as the evidence on record categorically show that the plaintiff has pleaded and proved that in the year 1994, the plaintiff had entered into possession of the Schedule-3 land which was a marshy land and thereafter continued to remain in possession of the land till 23.05.2016 when he was evicted forcefully without following the due process. The learned senior counsel submitted that in a proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1963, the only aspect which requires to be adjudicated is to whether the person concerned was in possession of the land in question and whether the suit was filed within a period of six months from the date of the alleged dispossession. The learned senior counsel submitted that both the

¶59

Page No.# 9/10

¶60

aspects of the matter were duly proved on the basis of the evidence placed by the plaintiff and it is under such circumstances, the question of there being any perversity in the findings or there being any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court does not arise.

¶61

I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record including the records of Title Suit No.65/2016. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order categorically shows that the learned Trial Court had decided the Issue Nos.3, 4 & 5 on the basis of the pleadings as well as the evidence on record. In addition to that, this Court has also perused the plaint as well as the evidence on affidavit of the plaintiff’s witnesses and the cross-examination.

¶62

From the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as the evidence so adduced, it is apparent that the plaintiff had categorically pleaded that the plaintiff had entered into the Schedule-3 land in the year 1994 when the said land was the “pitani” (marshy land) and thereafter continued to cultivate the said land. The plaintiff has also proved on the basis of the evidence that on 23.05.2016, the plaintiff was forcefully evicted and during the cross-examination, nothing could be brought on record to show anything about the falsity of the case of the plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff had filed the suit within six months from the date of his dispossession. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court,

¶63

Page No.# 10/10

¶64

the question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code does not arise for which the instant petition stands dismissed.

¶65