AMAR KUMAR PAUL vs SHYAM KANDAI NAGA and ORS.

Heard Mr. M.J Quadir the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on call for the respondent.

This revision under section 115 read with section 151 CPC is filed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned

Munsiff No.2 Cachar, Silchar in T.S. No.18/1991. By the said order, the suit filed by the petitioner under section 6 of this Specific Relief Act,

1963 was dismissed.

The case projected in the plaint is that the defendant No.1 had purchased land measuring 19 Kathas 8 Chatak vide registered deed No.2600

dated 02.04.1979 from the recorded pattadars and got possession of the same within specific boundaries and his name was mutated, which is

reflected in Sl. No.33 of the Jamabandi. Out of the said land, the defendant No.1, i.e Shri Shyam Kandi Naga sold land measuring 10 Kathas

towards the east to one Smt. Jagapatia Rabidas vide registered deed No.3108 dated 16.04.1981 and delivered possession. Her name was

mutated, in respect of the suit land, which is reflected in Sl.No.44 of the Jamabandi. Out of the remaining land, the defendant No.1 sold a specific

plot of land to one Darbari Robi Das and delivered possession. The balance land was retained by the defendant No.1 through Maijang Naga alias

Maliaeng Naga i.e. defendant No.2.

Smt. Jagapatia Rabidas sold her land to the petitioner/ plaintiff, Shri. Amal Kumar Paul vide registered sale deed No.4170 dated 24.05.1983

on receipt of valuable consideration and delivered possession. The petitioner is stated to have placed boundary pillars as well as boundary fencing

around the land and his name was mutated at Sl.No.45 of the Jamabandi. While taking steps to construct the boundary wall, it transpired that the

description of western and northern boundary was not in accordance with the physical boundary because by mistake in Sale Deed No.4170, the

boundary as described in registered deed No.2600 dated 02.04.1979 was mentioned. Accordingly, by a deed of Rectification bearing deed

No.1607 dated 10.04.1990, executed and registered by the said vendor of the petitioner, the correct boundary was described. Thereafter, the

petitioner applied for and was granted permission by the Silchar Development Authority for constructing the boundary wall.

The petitioner constructed a temporary house on the suit land, described in the schedule for the plaint for storing constructing materials for

accommodation of person for supervising the work and after collecting materials, the work was started. The defendants with some anti social

elements created obstructions. Hence, the petition under section 144 Cr.P.C was filed. Accordingly, case No. 388m/1990 was registered in the

Court of District Magistrate. Then the said learned Court restrained the defendants from entering the site by order dated 05.09.1988. Although the

said order was served on the defendants but by violating the said order, the defendants forcibly and illegally constructed a pig sty on the suit land

on 06.10.1990, demolished the boundary fencing and temporary house and took away the belongings kept in the house including the materials.

By filing petition dated 06.10.1990, the Attorney of the plaintiff informed the Court. The matter was inquired by the police and a report about

construction of pig sty was submitted. As per the plaint the Court initiated a proceeding under section 188 Cr.P.C (sic.) which is stated to be

pending. It was stated that the petitioner/ plaintiff was dispossessed on 06.10.1990. Claiming that cause of action for the suit arose on and from

03.09.1990, the date of attempt of obstruction by the defendants when the plaintiff was constructing the boundary wall and on 06.10.1990 the

date of dispossession from the suit land, the suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit land and for permanent injunction to restrain the

defendants from changing the nature and feature of the land described in schedule of the plaint by raising any temporary/ permanent structures

and/or by excavating pond, ditch, drain etc, cost and other relief.

The defendants / respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing their joint written statement. Their stand was that title and land in respect

of suit land and house standing thereon belonged to them. That the suit was barred by limitation. The suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder

of Jagpatia Rabidas.

It was projected that Md. Massudar Ali, Md. Raman Ali, Md. Intiayad Ali, Md. Fizul Ali, Md. Maibuddin Ali were the original owners and

possessors of the suit land. They admitted that the defendant No.1 purchased the land from the said owners by registered sale deed No.2600

dated 02.04.1979. The defendant No.1 took possession of the land and constructed a pig sty thereon and lived there with defendant No.2, who

was a close relation. It was admitted that due to financial crisis, land measuring 10 Kathas within the boundary of land measuring 19 Kathas 8

Chatak was sold to Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas, but claimed that she did not get possession because by executing an Ekrarnama on 16.04.1981, Smt.

Jagpatia Rabidas undertook to recover the same by her heirs to defendant No.1 at legitimate price and that if it was sold to anyone else, it would

be illegal and Jagpatia Rabidas would inform the defendant No.1 about the same atleast a month before the sale. It was stated that as per the terms

of the said Ekrarnama, Jagpatia Rabidas had not informed the defendant No.1 about the sale and, as such the sale deed was liable to be cancelled.

It was stated that the sale deed No.4170 dated 24.05.1983 was manufactured one, collusive, fraudulent, invalid and void which contained

imaginary boundaries, which did not tally with the registered sale deed No.2600 dated 26.04.1979. It was stated that as the petitioner/ plaintiff

could not take possession as per the boundary of the said land, he created Rectification Deed No.1601 dated 10.04.1990. But still, the

boundaries do not tally with the original purchase deed of Jagpatia Rabidas and that the petitioner could not take possession of the land.

In the meanwhile as the petitioner/ plaintiff threatened to take possession of the land by force and claimed that he had purchased the land, the

defendant no.1 had issued a notice to Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas on 10.01.1990, asking her for recovery of the land in favor of the defendant No.1 on

receipt of proper consideration as per the terms of the Ekrarnama dated 16.04.1981, but it was not replied. It was stated that as the plaintiff was

not in possession, the order dated 04.01.1990 passed in Case No.388m /1990 was vacated in respect of the house on 24.09.1990. It was stated

that although in the schedule of the said proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C., plaintiff''s own land was shown at eastern boundary, there was no

identification of the suit land in the said proceeding as well as in the present suit.

It was stated that at the western boundary of the schedule in the suit, Mainjang Naga alias Shyam Kandai Naga have been shown, as such the

plaintiff has himself admitted the schedule as plaint to the incorrect by writing Mainjang Naga as defendant No.1 and Shyam Kandai Naga as

defendant No.2. It was also stated that Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas and defendant No.2 was a tenant under the plaintiff long before the purchase, the

plaintiff was not entitled to recovery of possession from defendant No.2 and Jagpatia Rabidas did not execute any sale deed in favor of the

plaintiff, hence the Sale Deed No.4170 dated 24.05.1983 and Rectification Deed No.1607 dated 10.04.1990 was not inoperative, void, forged,

without consideration, collusive and fraudulent. Accordingly, it was prayed for disposal of the suit.

The following issues were framed by the learned Court:-

Is there any cause of action for the present suit against the answering defendant?

Is the suit maintainable in its present form and manner?

Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

Is the suit barred by the law of limitation?

Whether the plaintiff acquired, right, title, interest over the land in suit by purchase and got possession of the same?

Whether the counter-claim of the defendants is legally maintainable?

Whether Jagpatia Rabidas executed any deed of Ekrarnama as alleged on 16.04.81, in favour of the defendant No.1?

To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled?

Additional issue:

Whether the plaint has been duly signed and verified?

As per the impugned judgment the appellant plaintiff had examined 4 PWs (however evidence of only 3 PWs have been discussed in the

judgment and moreover, along with additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 12.12.2017, deposition of 3 PWs were produced) i.e. (1) Shri

Samar Paul (PW1), (2) Sakat Ali Borbhuiya (PW2) (3) Kanailal Rabidas (PW3) and had exhibited 9 documents. The following documents

exhibited by the PWs are: Power of Attorney by Amar Kumar Paul in favor of Samar Paul (Exbt.1), Sale deed No.4170 dated 24.05.1983 in

favor of plaintiff (Exbt.2), Rectification Deed No.1607 dated 10.04.1990 (Exbt.3), Certified copy of Jamabandi (Exbt.4), Revenue Receipt

(Exbt.5), Permission dated 28.07.1990 from Silchar Development Authority for constructing boundary wall (Exbt.6), Sketch maps attached to [

Exbt.6(i) and 6(ii)], Letter of extension of Exbt.6 (Exbt.7) , Order passed in Case No.388m/1990 (Exbt.8), Sale deed dated 16.04.1981

executed by defendant No.1 in favor of Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas (Exbt.9).

The respondent/defendant examined 3 witnesses, viz. Shri Shyam Kandai Naga (DW1), Smt. R. Kingaliu (DW2) and Shri Mobi Pau Rangmai

(DW3). The following documents are exhibited by the defendants:- Ekrarnama (Exbt.A), Sale deed (Exbt.B), Jamabandi [Exbt.4(i)], Land

Revenue Receipts [Exbt.C, Exbt.C(i), Exbt.C(ii), Exbt.C(iii)]. However, in the judgment the learned Trial Court has mentioned that 2 documents

were exhibited by the defendant''s side.

Issue No. 5 was taken up first. In respect of issue No.5, the defendant stated that though the suit land was sold to Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas by

defendant No.1, but Jagpatia never took its possession, rather, she had executed an Ekrarnama in the favour of defendant No.1 that in case of

selling, she would sell the same to defendant No.1. On appreciating the contents of the sale deeds (Exbt.2, Exbt.3 and Exbt.9) and Jamabandi

(Exbt.B), the learned Trial Court arrived at a finding that the boundary described in Exbt.3 is same as Exbt.9. However, Exbt.B showed that total

land in the suit Patta was 19 Kathas 8 Chatak, so it was held that which part of the total land was sold to Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas is not certain,

hence, it was further held that it cannot be ascertained that which particular land was sold to the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court had held that the

plaintiff admitted that boundary description of Exbt.3 was same as Exbt.9, which was: East-remaining land of Das No.489 possessed by Budhu

Rabidas, Bideshi Rabidas and others; West- Monjir Ali, Abdul Masabdir, in the remaining land of Dag No.489; North- remaining land of Dag

No.489 possessed by Sadhu Naga; South- Gopath and that as per Deed of Rectification (Exbt-3) the boundaries are East- Budhu Rabidas;

West- Maijan Naga alias Chankandi Naga; North- Sadhu Naga; South- Gopath and, as such, the learned Trial Court held that it could not arrive

at a definite finding that which part of the land was sold to Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas. The learned Trial Court relied on the cross-examination of PW-

3, who is the son of Late Jagpatia Rabidas, who had stated that Exbt-2 was rectified as the plaintiff was not getting possession. Appreciating the

contents of Exbt.5 i.e. the Sketch Map, Exbt.6 i.e. permission for construction of boundary wall and Exbt.7, the extension of permission, it was

held that those did not prove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and Exbt.-8 i.e. the order dated 05.08.1990, being an ex-parte order,

did not prove possession. Hence the issue was decided in the negative.

In respect of Issue No.3 it was held that the suit can be disposed of effectively in the present form and, as such, the issue was decided in

negative. In respect of Issue No.4 it was held that the suit was filed within limitation. In respect of Issue No.2 and additional Issue No.9, relying on

the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani Vs. Indusland and Bank Limited, AIR 2005 SC 439, it was held that the Attorney can depose upon his

personal knowledge, but on the ground that PW-1 was not an witness to the execution of the said Power of Attorney, it was held that the plaintiff

had failed to prove Exbt.1 and the plaint was held to be not maintainable, being not duly signed and verified and the issue was decided against the

plaintiff.

In respect of Issue No.1 it was held that the plaintiff failed to prove the cause of action and the issue was decided in the negative. In respect of

Issue No.7, the learned Trial Court relied on the cross-examination of DW-1 where he had stated that he could not say what was written in

Exbt.A. Moreover, although Exbt.A contained left thumb impression of Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas as well as signature of two witnesses, the execution

of Exbt.A was not proved by any of them and the PW-3, the son of Late Jagpatia Rabidas had denied the execution of Exbt.A. Hence, Exbt.A

was held to not have been proved and the issue was decided in negative.

In respect of Issue No.6, it was held that as the Ekrarnama (Exbt.A) was not proved, the counter-claim was held to be not maintainable and

the issue was decided in negative. Accordingly, both the suit and the counter-claim was dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in the plaint and the written statement. It is submitted that the learned

Trial Court had taken a view contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that once the Deed of Rectification (Exbt.3) was executed, it has

the effect of amending/ rectifying the Sale Deed (Exbt.2). It is submitted that upon rectification vide Exbt.3, the sale Deed (Exbt.-2) had the effect

of showing correct boundary of the suit land measuring 10 Kathas on the North and the West. Therefore, the identity of the land with its definite

boundaries can be determined solely on the basis of Exbt.3 i.e. the Deed of Rectification which had the effect of correcting the schedule of the land

described in the Sale deed (Exbt.2).

It is submitted that when the defendant No.1 in his sale deed dated 16.04.1981 (Exbt.9) had specifically mentioned in the sale deed that

possession of 19 Kathas 8 Chatak land was handed over to Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas, as it was held that Exbt.A i.e. the Ekrarnama was not proved,

the oral evidence of DW-1 that possession of the land mentioned in Exbt.9 was not delivered, being contrary to the contents of the Sale Deed, is

squarely hit by the principles of section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is further submitted that it was wrongly held that Exbt.5, 6, 7 and 8 did

not prove the possession of the petitioner.

Moreover, it is submitted that while deciding the issues, the entire evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 were not discussed. Moreover, when the

petitioner had proved that his name was duly mutated in respect of the suit land by proving the entries in Jamabandi, the learned Trial Court ought

to have claimed that the petitioner had the possession over the suit land because there cannot be any mutation in the absence of actual physical

possession.

In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases:-

1). Leima Singh Choudhury & ors. Vs. Tarini Mohan Das and ors, 2005 (2) GLR 140

2). Ashutosh Das Vs. Sushma Rani Das and ors, 1995 (3) GLT 495,

3). Debeswar Barah Vs. Ghogi Saikia and ors, 2005 (Suppl) GLT 781,

4). Kailash Kalita Vs. Sanjib Sharma and ors, 2006 (Supp) GLT 750

This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as perused the materials on record. It is

observed that the plaintiff did not adduce any evidence, instead, his attorney, namely, Samar Paul gave evidence as PW-1. The Power of Attorney

in his favor was made on 12.04.1990. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani

(supra), the Attorney can give evidence of only his acts which was done pursuant to his appointment as his Attorney. Therefore, the PW-1 being

not present at the time of execution of the Sale Deed (Exbt.9), executed in favor of Smt. Jagpatia Rabidas or at the time of delivery of possession

of the land to her and moreover, as he was not a witness to the handing over of the possession of the suit land to the petitioner/ plaintiff, he is found

to be not a competent witness to prove that the plaintiff was put into the possession of the suit land.

Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity with the finding by the learned Trial Court that the Exhibits proved by the petitioner plaintiff did

not prove that the petitioner was in actual possession of the suit land. Moreover, the PW-3, the son of Late Jagpatia Rabidas, having admitted in

his cross-examination that the sale deed was required to be rectified because the plaintiff could not get possession of the suit land, was sufficient to

dispute that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the petitioner with the execution of the Sale Deed (Exbt.3).

Moreover, as per the plaint, it is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 05.09.1988, the learned Additional District Magistrate in case

No.388m/1990 had restrained the defendants from entering into the site of the construction of the boundary wall. But per statement made in the

paragraph 4 of the plaint, the Silchar Development Authority had granted permission for constructing of boundary wall only on 28.07.1990. But,

as per the evidence of the attorney PW-1, he has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had constructed the boundary wall, which is not the

case projected in the plaint. Therefore, the documents at Exbt. 5 to 8 does not prove possession of the petitioner. Moreover, no evidence was

given about the subsequent proceeding alleged to have been initiated under section 188 Cr.P.C (sic.). Therefore, as the petitioner could not prove

his possession over the suit land, he is not entitled to any relief under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

This Court is of the opinion that suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the right, title and interest is not required to be adjudicated

because the Trial Court must confine itself to the question as to whether the aggrieved party was dispossessed within 6 months by the offending

party. Ideally, the Court having the issues decided in favor of the aggrieved party, notwithstanding any other issues, the aggrieved party is required

to be put back into possession and such a suit does not conclusively determine the right, title and interest of the parties. In a suit under section 6 of

the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Trial Court cannot decide the issues relating to right, title and interest. Therefore, this Court exercising the

revisional powers under section 115 CPC, refrains from answering any other point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as those are not

material to be answered in this Revision arising out of proceeding under section 6 of Specific Relief Act.

In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the dismissal of the revision, the parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for

adequate relief in accordance with law if, so advised.

This revision stands dismissed.

The parties are left to bear their own cost.