Allowed

Sibcharan Barman v. Punya Barman and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2025CRP(IO)/326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision concerning a property dispute, the Gauhati High Court upheld the First Appellate Court's direction to maintain status quo pending trial of the title suit. The court vacated prior interim orders and directed parties to preserve their respective claims via commissioner appointment if needed.

What did the court decide?

Vacated prior interim orders; disposed of inquiries; directed parties to maintain status quo till disposal of suit; parties given liberty to appoint commissioner in Trial Court.

Sibcharan Barman Vs Punya Barman and 2 Ors. — Partition | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010205542024

2025:GAU-AS:7337

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/410/2024

¶6

SIBCHARAN BARMAN

¶7

S/O LATE NARENDRA BARMAN, VILL AND P.O.-KUMARIKATA, P.S.TAMULPUR, DIST- BAKSA (B.T.R.), ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SMT. PUNYA BARMAN AND 2 ORS W/O BIDHAN BARMAN, R/O VILL AND P.O.-KUMARIKATA, MOUZAKUMARIKATA, P.S.-TAMULPUR, DIST- BAKSA (BTR), ASSAM

¶10

2:MANORANJAN BARMAN S/O LATE GAJENDRA BARMAN R/O VILL AND P.O.-KUMARIKATA MOUZA- KUMARIKATA P.S.-TAMULPUR DIST- BAKSA (BTR) ASSAM 3:PRASANTA BARMAN S/O BIDHAN BARMAN R/O VILL AND P.O.-KUMARIKATA MOUZA- KUMARIKATA P.S.-TAMULPUR DIST- BAKSA (BTR) ASSA

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR, MR. S I TALUKDAR

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶13

Page No.# 2/9

¶14

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/326/2024

¶15

SIBCHARAN BARMAN S/O- LATE NARENDRA BARMAN VILL. AND P.O. KUMARIKATA P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA B.T.R. ASSAM VERSUS

¶16

PUNYA BARMAN AND 2 ORS. W/O- BIDHAN BARMAN R/O- VILL. AND P.O. KUMARIKATA MOUZA- KUMARIKATA P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA (BTR) ASSAM 2:MANORANJAN BARMAN S/O- LATE GAJENDRA BARMAN R/O- VILL. AND P.O. KUMARIKATA MOUZA- KUMARIKATA P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA (BTR) ASSAM

¶17

3:PRASANTA BARMAN S/O- BIDHAN BARMAN R/O- VILL. AND P.O. KUMARIKATA MOUZA- KUMARIKATA P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA (BTR) ASSAM -----------For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.R. Sikdar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Choudhury, Advocate

¶18

Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date of Judgment : 04.06.2025

¶19

Page No.# 3/9

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶21

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶22

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on of the respondents in both the applications.

¶23

The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 01/2023 in CRP(IO) No. 410/2024 as well as the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 02/2023 in CRP(IO) No. 326/2024 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baksa (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) whereby the order dated 01.06.2023 in Misc (J) Case No. 01/2023 as well as the order dated 01.06.2023 in Misc (J) Case No. 10/2022 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff, Baksa (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) was modified.

¶24

Taking into account that both the proceedings arise out of the same suit being Title Suit No. 14/2022; by the present judgment, this Court, proposes to dispose of both the applications.

¶25

From the records, it is seen that the petitioner herein in both the

¶26

Page No.# 4/9

¶27

applications, as plaintiff had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 14/2022 seeking a decree for declaration of right, title and interest as well as for recovery of khas possession and for permanent injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff also sought for partition of the suit property as described in Schedule ‘Kha’. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit was that the property described in Schedule ‘Ka’ was purchased by the petitioner from the original Pattadar one Sri Harish Chandra Medhi by executing a Registered Sale Deed No. 41 and had been enjoying the same till the date of filing of the suit by constructing a residential house thereon.

¶28

It was further mentioned in the suit that the land mentioned in Schedule ‘Kha’ is covered by Dag No. 476 of old Patta No. 2 and new Patta No. 339 and Dag No. 820 and the total area is 2 Kathas 10 Lechas, which is the suit land and Schedule ‘Kha’ is a part of the Schedule ‘Ka’ land. It is further mentioned that the defendants had purchased equal portion of land on the same day, along with the petitioner/plaintiff from the same Dag and Patta Nos. and in that regard, a map had been provided in the plaint itself. In the said Schedule ‘Kha’ land, which is the suit land, both the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession and they had dug up a common fishery for rearing fish. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants were trying to encroach the land of the plaintiff described in Schedule ‘Kha’ including his fishery and betel nut garden on the

¶29

Page No.# 5/9

¶30

western side. As the plaintiff had opposed the said illegal attempt of the defendants, the plaintiff being annoyed with the activities of the defendants filed an application before the Circle Officer of Tamulpur Revenue Circle praying for demarcation of the boundary and the officials, i.e. the local Latmandal along with other three Mondals, came to the spot for demarcation and warned both the parties not to quarrel and not to conduct fishing in the pond.

¶31

It is the further case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the defendants, in spite of that, was unauthorizedly entering into the fishery and trying to occupy the land of the plaintiff described in the Schedule ‘Kha’ by breaking the fencing and openly threatening the plaintiff and it is under such circumstances, the suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land described in Schedule ‘Kha’ as well as the decree for restoring the khas possession of the plaintiff over the Schedule ‘Kha’ land etc. Along with the said suit, an injunction application was filed which was registered and numbered as Misc (J) Case No. 10/2022 and the learned Trial Court vide an order dated 01.06.2023 directed the opposite parties, i.e. the respondents herein, not to enter the suit land or disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff until the final disposal of the connected Title Suit or until any further order.

¶32

The defendant No. 2 to the said suit filed the written statement

¶33

Page No.# 6/9

¶34

along with the counter claim claiming right over the entire suit land on the basis of adverse possession. Along with the said counter claim, the defendant No. 2 also filed an injunction application which was registered and numbered as Misc (J) Case No. 01/2023 seeking a direction upon the plaintiff, his men and agents from entering into the suit land of the counter claimant till the disposal of the suit. The said application being Misc (J) Case No. 01/2023 was dismissed vide an order dated 01.06.2023 on the ground that the defendant No. 2 did not have any right.

¶35

Resultantly, two appeals were filed by the defendant No. 2 who is the respondent No. 1 herein which were registered as Misc Appeal No. 01/2023 and Misc Appeal No. 02/2023. It is further relevant to take note of that Misc Appeal No. 01/2023 is directed against the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff, Baksa whereby Misc (J) Case No. 01/2023 filed by the defendant No. 2/ the respondent No. 1 herein was rejected and Misc Appeal No. 02/2023 was filed against the granting of an injunction by the learned Court of the Munsiff, Baksa in Misc. (J) Case No. 10/2022 dated 01.06.2023. It is seen that the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 01/2023 thereby directing both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land till the disposal of the Title Suit. Similarly, Misc. Appeal No. 02/2023 was also allowed passing similar direction that both the parties shall maintain status quo till the

¶36

Page No.# 7/9

¶37

disposal of the Title Suit. It is under such circumstances, both the applications are before this Court.

¶38

This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶39

This Court has inquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as to whether, the petitioner is in possession of the suit land.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner still is in possession of the suit land, but intermittently the defendants continue to disturb.

¶41

Per contra, Mr. D. Choudhury the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the year 2001, the plaintiff had sold the suit land to the respondent No. 1 herein verbally and thereupon after various requests, as the Deed of Sale was not executed, the respondent No. 1 has been enjoying the entire suit land openly, hostilely and adverse to the rights of the plaintiff/petitioner. He therefore submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit land.

¶42

This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that neither the learned Trial Court nor the learned First Appellate Court had taken

¶43

Page No.# 8/9

¶44

into consideration while passing the impugned order, as to who, is in possession of the suit land.

¶45

Be that as it may, it being a settled principle of law that at the time of filing of the suit, the status quo is required to be preserved, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned First Appellate Court was justified while disposing of both the appeals thereby directing both the parties that the status quo over the suit land be maintained till the disposal of the suit. Under such circumstances, this Court is also of the opinion that the learned First Appellate Court was justified in passing an order of injunction thereby directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect to the suit land.

¶46

This Court, however, would like to add that the status quo so directed by the learned First Appellate Court shall mean, the status quo as regards the possession over the suit land till the disposal of the suit.

¶47

This Court further taking into account that both the parties are claiming that they are in respective possession of the suit land, the parties herein would be at liberty to file appropriate application before the learned Trial Court for appointment of a commissioner, if so advised, to ascertain as to who is in possession.

¶48

Interim order passed on 21.10.2024 in CRP (IO) No. 410/2024 as

¶49

Page No.# 9/9

¶50

well as the interim order passed on 09.09.2024 in CRP (IO) No. 326/2024 stands vacated.

¶51

With the above, both the revision applications stands disposed

¶52

of.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Sibcharan Barman v. Punya Barman and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibcharan Barman v. Punya Barman and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonaban Khatun and 9 Ors. Vs Daliman Bibi and 11 Ors.

Sonaban Khatun and 9 Ors. Vs Daliman Bibi and 11 Ors.

Gitima Roy and 2 Ors. Vs Sabita Nath Sarma

Haji Idris Ali Laskar and Anr. Vs on the Death of Md. Ibrahim Ali Laskar His Legal Heirs Namely

Kakojan Kristi Kendra and 2 Ors. Vs Prodip Dutta and Anr.

Smt. Uma Rani Bhattacharjee and 7 Ors, Vs Smt. Kamala Dasgupta and 7 Ors.