Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Smti. Manada Sundari Malakar on 26 February, 2021
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010003262016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/43/2020
SHRI SANJAY BHATTACHARJEE AND 3 ORS.
S/O- LATE KULADA PRASAD BHATTACHARJEE, R/O- VILL.-
CHANDRANATHPUR, PH. AND P.S. BORKHOLA, P.O. CHANDRANATHPUR,
SADAR SUB-DIVISION, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788817.
2: SHRI DIBAKAR BHATTACHARJEE
S/O- LATE KULADA PRASAD BHATTACHARJEE
R/O- VILL.- CHANDRANATHPUR
PH. AND P.S. BORKHOLA
P.O. CHANDRANATHPUR
SADAR SUB-DIVISION
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788817.
3: SHRI CHINMOY BHATTACHARJEE
S/O- LATE KULADA PRASAD BHATTACHARJEE
R/O- VILL.- CHANDRANATHPUR
PH. AND P.S. BORKHOLA
P.O. CHANDRANATHPUR
SADAR SUB-DIVISION
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788817.
4: SHRI BIPUL LODH
S/O- LATE SUDHIR LODH
R/O- VILL.- CHANDRANATHPUR
PH. AND P.S. BORKHOLA
P.O. CHANDRANATHPUR
SADAR SUB-DIVISION
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788817
Page No.# 2/3
VERSUS
SMTI. MANADA SUNDARI MALAKAR
W/O- LATE AKSHAYA KUMAR MALAKAR, R/O- VILL.-
CHANDRANATHPUR, PH. AND P.S. BORKHOLA, P.O. CHANDRANATHPUR,
SADAR SUB-DIVISION, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788817.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 26.02.2021 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. S. P. Choudhury, appearing for the appellants.
The appeal is admitted for hearing upon the following 3(three) substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the learned courts below have failed to take note of the fact that there was specific averment in the written statement as well as in the evidence with regard to acquiring ownership title over the suit land by efflux of time and the courts below as such had arrived at an erroneous finding without considering Article 65 of the Limitation Act whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was barred by limitation, therefore, the impugned judgment and decrees being perverse?
2. Whether the learned Courts below have failed to construe Section 5 and Section 51 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 in proper perspective with regard to the permanent, heritable and transferrable right of use and occupancy of a occupancy tenant and as such the impugned Judgments and Decrees are perverse?
3. Whether the learned courts below have misinterpreted the provision of Section 64 of the Evidence Act while taking into account Page No.# 3/3 the Exhibit-1, the certified copy of the sale deed for arriving at a finding as to ownership right of the plaintiff and as such the impugned Judgments and Decrees of the learned courts below are perverse?
Call for the LCR.
Issue notice to the respondents. The appellants shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondents by registered post with A/D as well as by other usual process.
List the matter after 4(four) weeks, on a date to be fixed by the Registry.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant