Gauhati High Court
Abdul Matleb And Anr vs Ishahoque @ Ishaher Ali And 2 Ors on 18 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GAU 342
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010005612017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA 187/2018
1:ABDUL MATLEB and ANR
S/O LATE ASORUDDIN
R/O VILLAGE AND PO AULATOLI
PS LAKHIPUR
DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM
2: KURMAN ALI
S/O LATE ASORUDDIN
R/O VILLAGE AND PO AULATOLI
PS LAKHIPUR
DIST GOALPARA
ASSA
VERSUS
1:ISHAHOQUE @ ISHAHER ALI and 2 ORS
S/O LATE MOKSHED MONDAL
R/O VILLAGE AND PO AULATOLI
PS LAKHIPUR
DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GOALPARA DIST PO
PS AND DISTRICT GOALPARA
ASSAM
4:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER (ASO)
LAKHIPUR
PO AND PS LAKHIPUR
DIST GOALPARA
ASSA
Page No.# 2/11
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S HOQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A ROSHID (R1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Date : 18-02-2020
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S Haque, learned counsel for the appellants defendants and Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the respondent plaintiffs.
2. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit 109/2013 in the Court of the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Goalpara, inter-alia claiming for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff have right, title and interest over the Schedule C suit land and for a further decree of declaration that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the Schedule-D land and also for khas possession thereof by evicting the defendant No.1 and the persons acting under him. A further decree was also sought for by a declaration that the defendant No.1 has no right, title and interest over the suit land as well as a right to occupy the suit land. In paragraph-2 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the father of the plaintiff late Mokshed Ali had purchased a plot of land measuring 5B-0K-0L of Dag No.246 Tauzi No.10 from one Rajendra Prasad Singh, son of late Chandrika Prasad Singh, who was a rayot under the Jotedar Parmanenda Adhikary by a registered sale deed No.727/763 on 02.02.1973 and thereafter the father of the plaintiffs had taken possession of the land. The land so purchased by the father of the plaintiffs is the Schedule-A to the plaint. A stand was taken that while the father of the plaintiffs was ploughing the Schedule-A land, the predecessor in interest of the defendants dispossessed him from the Schedule-A land resulting in the institution of Title Suit 07/1975 in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Goalpara. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs in the year 1992 i.e. on being substituted as the legal heirs of the deceased late Mokshed Ali. The defendants preferred Title Appeal 10/1992 in the Court of learned District Judge, Goalpara against the judgment of the learned trial Court in Title Suit 17/1975 but the Title Appeal was subsequently dismissed.
3. Thereupon, Execution Case No.10/1994 was filed, in which the defendants No. 1 and 2 were evicted from the suit land. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is stated that the revenue department of Lakhipur revenue circle had caused the Schedule-A land to be divided into two parts, one comprising of 4B-1K-0L of Dag No.629 of Madhya Patta No.184 which is described as Schedule-B in the plaint and Page No.# 3/11 the other part comprising of 0B-3K-5L of Dag No.616 of Madhya Patta No.78 which is described as Schedule-C in the plaint. In paragraph 6, it is stated that while the plaintiffs were peacefully enjoying the aforesaid land, the defendant No.1 entered the Schedule-D land in the month of March, 2009. On being protested, the defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff that the land record was corrected in his name. In the circumstance, the suit was instituted for a declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule-C land and a further declaration of right, title, interest and delivery of khas possession over the Schedule-D land.
4. With regard to the plea of the plaintiff in paragraph 3 as regards the earlier dispossession of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, resulting in Title suit 17/1975, a stand had been taken in the written statement that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants possessed the suit land since the year 1975 and after his death, the defendants are in possession of the same. As regards the statements made in paragraph 6 of the plaint as regards the illegal entry of the defendant No.1 to the Schedule-D land, the defendants denied the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and a categorical stand was taken that the defendants had been in possession of the suit land since the year 1975 i.e. since the time of the lifetime of their father.
5. By the judgment dated 12.10.2015, the Title Suit 109/2013 was dismissed. One of the reasons for dismissing the suit by the learned trial Court as apparent from paragraph 12 of the judgment was that the Exhibit-2 judgment in Title Suit 17/1975 had held that the defendant No.1 is the landlord and that Rajendra Prasad Singh was an occupancy tenant in respect of 5B under Dag No.246 Tauzi No.10. A view was also formed that the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs late Mokshed Ali had acquired a permanent heritable and transferrable right of tenancy under the sale deed executed by Rajendra Prasad Singh. Accordingly, it was concluded that in the Title Suit 17/1975, the predecessor- in-interest of the present plaintiffs late Mokshed Ali was not the owner of the Schedule-A land and in fact he was found to be an occupancy tenant of the suit land.
6. On an appeal being carried in the Court of leaned Civil Judge, Goalpara, which was registered as Title Appeal No.13/2015, the judgment of the learned trial Court in Title Suit 109/2013 was interfered by the judgment dated 03.07.2017 of the first appellate Court. In the judgment of 03.07.2017 of the first appellate Court, the issue as regards the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land was elaborately discussed in relation to the judgment in Title Suit 17/1975. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the evidence of PW-1 was discussed to the extent that the predecessor- in-interest of the plaintiffs late Mokshed Ali had purchased a plot of land measuring 5B of Dag No.246 Tauzi No.10 vide registered sale deed No.727/1763 dated 02.02.1973from Rajendra Prasad Singh, Page No.# 4/11 who was a rayot under the Jotedar Parmanenda Adhikary. The earlier litigation in Title Suit 17/1975 was also taken note of wherein the possession in respect of the Schedule-A land was returned back to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff by means of the execution in Title Execution Case No.18/1994.
7. Further, the evidence of PW-1 was discussed to the extent that the witness exhibited the sale deed which showed that 5B of land was purchased by the father of the plaintiff from Rajendra Prasad Singh and that he had purchased occupancy tenancy right, which is a permanent, heritable and transferrable right. Further, in Title Suit 17/1975, the learned Court had held that Rajendra Prasad Singh had acquired the permanent, heritable and transferrable right of tenancy after the death of his father late Chandrika Singh, under the Jotedar and accordingly through a sale deed had transferred his right in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the learned first appellate Court arrived at its conclusion that the respondent plaintiff had succeeded in establishing their right, title and interest over the suit land and therefore are entitled to a declaration of their right, title, interest and also to get back the possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants. Being aggrieved, the present regular second appeal is being preferred.
8. Mr. S Haque, learned counsel for the appellants defendants raises a contention that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent plaintiff was a tenant of another person inasmuch as, they had purchased the right of occupancy tenancy from the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh and therefore, they are at the best a tenant under the provisions of Assam Temporary Settled Areas Tenancy Act, 1971 as provided in explanation-3 to Section 4(2) of the Assam Land Holding (Adoption of Relationship under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 in the acquired permanently settled Estates) Act, 1974. Accordingly, the declaration of the right, title and interest of the respondents plaintiffs over the suit land as per the judgment dated 03.07.2015 of the learned first appellate Court in Title Appeal 13/2015 to the extent that they have the right of a land holder is erroneous.
9. A further contention is raised that if the vendor of the sale deed made in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs is a tenant, he can sell the land only on the satisfaction of certain conditions and therefore, the title claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of their predecessor in interest would be erroneous. In the circumstance, the substantial question of law that is sought to be framed by Mr. S Haque is whether under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Assam Land Holding (Adoption of Relationship under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 in the acquired permanently settled Estates) Act, 1974 read with the Page No.# 5/11 explanation thereof, the vendor of the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs had a permanent, heritable and transferrable right over the suit land so as to entitle him to effect the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. Another substantial question of law that is being raised by Mr. S Haque, learned counsel for the appellants defendants is whether the decree dated 20.05.2017 of the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara in relation to the judgment dated 03.07.2017 in Title Appeal 13/2015 meets the requirement of Order-XX Rules 6 and 9 of the CPC.
10. In order to appreciate the first substantial question of law raised by the appellant in this regular second appeal we deem it appropriate to go through the judgment dated 24.03.1992 in Title Suit 17/1975, which had been relied upon by both the parties to understand the nature and extent of the permanent, heritable and transferrable right of the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh, who had executed the sale deed No.727/763 dated 02.02.1973 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs.
11. The relevant paragraph in the exhibit 2 judgment dated 24.03.1992 in TS No.17/75 is as under:
"Now, I find, as admitted by suit land belonged to jotedar and not to any proprietor or tenure holder (under the G.T Act) by virtue of Assam Act I of 1975 (i.e. the Assam land holding Adoption Etc.) Act, 1974 which came into force from 18-1-75. Chandrika Singh acquired the rights of an occupancy tenant under the provisions of the Assam (Temp. settled areas tenancy) Act, 1971 (Vide Sec.4(2), Exht (3) of the said Assam Act I, 1975). Thus, Chandrika Singh having acquired a permanent, heritable and transferable rights of tenancy under the jotedars; on his death, Rajendra Singh also acquired the same rights was transferred to the plaintiff in 1973 (though Ex.2). But this is not the case of the defendant No.1 who by purchase on 12-3-75 i.e. after coming into force of the Assam Act I of 1975 at best has acquired the right of a land lord under the provisions of Assam (Temp. settled areas tenancy) Act, 1971 in respect of an existing non-ejectable occupancy tenant by transfer (plaintiff) over the suit land.
12. From the extracted portion of the exhibit 2 judgment dated 24.03.1992 in TS No.17/75 it is apparent that the there was a conclusive finding of fact that Chandrika Sinha, the father of Rajendra Prasad Singh had acquired the right of an occupancy tenant under Section 4(2) of the Assam Land Holding ( Adoption of Relationship under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 in the Acquired Permanently Settled Estates) Act, 1974, (for short, Act of 1974) and on his death Rajendra Prasad Singh had acquired the same right by inheritance. A further conclusive finding of fact which had attained finality is that Chandrika Prasad Singh was an occupancy tenant under the Jotedar, who Page No.# 6/11 is stated to be Parmananda Adhikary.
13. Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the question by relying upon the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974 and contends that Chandrika Prasad Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh who was holding the suit land as a tenant under the Jotedar Paramananda Adhikary continues to hold the land with the status of a tenant under the provisions of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, (for short, the Act of 1971). By referring to Explanation 3 to Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974, Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the status of the predecessor in interest of the present plaintiffs would be that of a person holding land under another person i.e. under the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh and, therefore, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff would also have to be construed to be a tenant under the provisions of the Act of 1971.
14. It being so, it is the contention that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs would at the best be a tenant under the Act of 1971 and, therefore, their entitlement to the right title and interest over the suit land would be restricted to that of a tenant. Accordingly the contention raised is that both the vendor of the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs namely Rajendra Prasad Singh through inheritance as well as the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs through the sale deed No.272/763 dated 02.02.1973 are having the status of occupancy tenants under the Act of 1971. It being so, the right of transfer of the suit land in question of the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh would, therefore, be subjected to the restriction of Section 8 of the Act of 1971. We have taken note of that under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1971, the occupancy tenant shall have a right of transfer in respect of his holding with prior permission of the Government in the manner prescribed and the notice of such transfer shall be served on the landlord in the manner prescribed. Accordingly, a contention is raised that the pre-requisite of Section 8 of Act of 1971 was not satisfied in the instant case in respect of the sale deed No.727/763 dated 02.02.1973 and, therefore, no right, title and interest of the plaintiffs can be declared on the basis of such sale deed.
15. We have given our detailed consideration to the said contention raised by Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the appellants defendants. For an easy reference, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1974 and Section 8 of the Act of 1971 are extracted hereinbelow:
"Act of 1974:-
Section 4. Conferment of land holder's status to persons holding land under Government. - (1) Any person, on the commencement of this Act, holding any Page No.# 7/11 land directly under Govenment in the area under any of the provisions of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951, (Assam Act-XVIII of 1951.) shall continue to hold the same under the Regulation with the status of a land- holder subject to payment of such land revenue as may be assessed as per provision under the Regulation.
[Provided that till the assenment of land revenue s made the person holding land under Government ment shall continue to pay the amount which he earlier paid as rent or the amount which he was liable to pay before the commencement of this Act.].
(2) Every person holding any land as a tenant of another person in the area shall continue to hold the same with the status of a tenant as per provisions of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, (Assam Act, XXIII of 1971.) :
Provided that the rent payable by such tenant shall not exceed the maximum fixed under the Assam ( Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 ;
Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any right already acquired by such tenant to his disadvantage.
Explanation. - (1) Any ex-proprietor or ex-tenure holder holding any land or holding any homestead land in the Area free from payment of land revenue under sub-section (4) of section 6 of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951, (Assam Act, XVIII of 1951). is also liable to pay land revenue as may be assesed as per provisions under the Regulation.
(2) Any occupancy or non-occupancy tenant of the ex-proprietor or ex-tenure holder holding land in the areas after the acquisition under the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act, XVIII of 1951). shall acquire the status of a land holder under the Regulation.
(3) Any person holding land under another person in the area shall be deemed to be a tenant under the provisions of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971.
(4) Any person holding non-agricultural land under another person in the areas shall be deemed to be a tenant under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955."
"Act of 1971:-
Section 8 - Right of transfer An occupancy tenant shall have a right of transfer in respect of his holding with prior permission of the Government in the manner prescribed. A notice of such transfer shall be served on the landlord in the manner prescribed :
Provided that an occupancy tenant shall not transfer his land to a non- agriculturist."
16. The core contention of Mr. Hoque is based on the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974 which provides that every person holding any land as tenant of another person in the area shall Page No.# 8/11 continue to hold the same with the status of a tenant as per the provisions of Act of 1971. Accordingly, the predecessor-in-interest of the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh, namely, Chandrika Prasad Singh being a person holding the suit land as tenant under the Jotdear Parmananda Adhikary, the right that had accrued to him under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974 would be that of a tenant under the provisions of the Act of 1971.
17. Reading Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974 clearly leads to the inference that the predecessor in interest of the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh had acquired only the status of a tenant under the Act of 1971 and it being so his right of transfer the land would be governed by the restrictions of Section 8 of the Act of 1971 and from such point of view the sale deed No.727/763 dated 02.02.1973 would not give the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs an inhibited right title and interest over the schedule A suit land. But again when we read Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974, we find that the provisions of Section 4(2) are again subjected to the Explanation contained therein, particularly, the Explanation No.2 to Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974.
18. In Keshavji Ravji and Co. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1990) 2 SCC 231, in respect of 'Explanation' to a provision, it has been provided as follows:
".........An 'Explanation', generally speaking, is intended to explain the meaning of certain phrases and expressions contained in a statutory provision. There is no general theory as to the effect and intendment of an Explanation except that the purposes and intendment of the 'Explanation' are determined by its own words. An 'Explanation', depending on its language, might supply or take away something from the contents of a provision..."
19. Again in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in AIR 1955 SC 661, it has been held that an explanation becomes a part and parcel of an enactment.
20. Further the Explanation 2 to Section 4(2) being in the nature of an explanation, it can either be used to understand the provision of Section 4(2) or it can be also used for the purpose of either including or excluding certain provisions which had not been expressly provided in Section 4(2) itself. As held by the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman, reported in 1985(1) SCC 591, an explanation cannot, however, take away the statutory right which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming a hindrance in the interpretation of the same, but an explanation can be used to explain the meaning and the entailment of the Act itself. Accordingly, although Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974 provides that any person holding any land is a tenant of another person and shall continue to hold the same with the Page No.# 9/11 status of a tenant as per the provision of Act of 1971, but as per the Explanation 2, in case of occupancy or non-occupancy tenants of ex-proprietors or ex-tenure-holder, holding land in the areas after acquisition under the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindari Act 1951 (for short, the Act of 1951), such occupancy or non-occupancy tenants shall acquire the status of a land holder under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, Regulation of 1886).
21. The Act of 1951 provides for the acquisition by the State of the interest of the proprietors and tenure-holders in the permanently settled areas of Assam in the districts of Goalpara, Garo Hills and Karimganj Sub-Divisions of Cachar district including forest, fisheries, haat-bazar, ferries, mines and minerals. The expression Jotedars used in the exhibit-2 judgment dated 24.03.1992 in T.S No.17/1975 would have to be understood to be that of a proprietor within the meaning of Section 2(V) of the Act of 1951 and also the land in question being located in the district of erstwhile Goalpara it would have to be understood that by operation of law, the predecessor in interest of the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh had acquired the status of a land holder being an occupancy or non-occupancy tenant under the ex-proprietor and ex-tenure holders holding land in areas after acquisition under the Act of 1951.
22. It being so, the status of the predecessor in interest of the vendor Rajendra Prasad Singh would be governed by the provisions of Explanation 2 of Section 4(2) of the Act of 1974, and therefore, he would have the status of a land holder under the Regulation of 1886. Accordingly, it has to be held that the status of the plaintiffs, as contended by Mr. S Hoque would not be that of a person holding land under another person in the area so as to be deemed to be a tenant under the Act of 1971 would be unacceptable.
23. From the Exhibitt No. 2 judgment and order dated 24.03.1992 in T.S No.17/1975 as well as from the sale deed No.727/763 dated 02.02.1973 jointly read with the provisions of Section 4(2) and Explanation 2 of the Act of 1974, it cannot be held that the plaintiffs are tenants under the Act of 1971 and, therefore, the sale deed in question would be subjected to the restrictions of Section 8 of the Act of 1971.
Accordingly, the substantial question of law whether under the provision of Section 4(2) of the Assam Land Holding (Adoption of Relationship under the (Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 in the acquired permanently settled Estates) Act, 1974 read with the Explanation-2 thereof, the vendor of the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff had a permanent, heritable and transferrable right over the suit land so as to entitle him to effect the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff and whether the decree dated 20.05.2017 of the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara in relation to the judgment dated 03.07.2017 in Title Appeal 13/2015 meets the Page No.# 10/11 requirement of Order-XX Rules 6 and 9 of the CPC, sought to be raised by the appellants in the instant regular second appeal would have to be decided in negative against the appellant defendants.
24. From the said point of view, we do not find any infirmity in the declaration of the right, title and interest of the learned first appellate court in its judgment dated 03.07.2017 in TA No.13/2015 in favour of the respondent plaintiffs in respect of the suit land.
25. As regards the other substantial question of law raised whether the decree passed by the learned first appellate court dated 12.07.2017 fulfills the requirement of Order XX Rule 6 and Rule 9, we have taken note of that the decree of the learned first appellate court of 12.07.2017 does not contain the description of the suit land over which the declaration has been made in the judgment dated 03.07.2017. Order XX Rule 6 and Rule 9 are extracted as follows:
"6.Contents of decree- (1) The decree shall agree with the judgment; it shall contain the number of the suit, the [names and descriptions of the parties, their registered address,] and particulars of the claim, and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit.
(2) The decree shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the suit, and by whom or out of what property and in what properties such costs are to be paid.
(3) The Court may direct that the costs payable to one party by the other shall be set off against any sum which is admitted or found to be due from the former to the latter.
9. Decree for recovery of immovable property.- Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the decree shall contain a description of such property sufficient to identify the same, and where such property can be identified by boundaries or by numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the decree shall specify such boundaries or numbers."
26. A reading of Order XX Rule 6 provides that the decree shall agree with the judgment and it shall contain the number of the suit, names and description of the parties, their registered addresses and particulars of the claim and shall specify clearly the relief granted and other determinations in the suit. The requirement of containing the particulars of the claim and specifying clearly the relief granted and other determinations of the suit by itself provides for a requirement that at least the description of the suit premises over which such decree had been passed are required to be present and indicated in the decree itself.
Page No.# 11/11
27. In respect of the contents of a decree, the Supreme Court in OM Prakash Verma & Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 158 in paragraph 61 has held as follows:
".......The Judgment has to state the relief allowed to a party. The preparation of decree follows the judgment. The decree shall agree with the judgment. The decree shall contain, inter alia, particulars of the claim and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit."
28. From a reading of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also it is apparently clear that the decree shall agree with the judgment and shall contain, inter alia, the particulars of the claim and shall specify clearly the relief granted and other determination of the suit.
29. When we look at the decree dated 12.07.2017 of the learned first appellate court in TA No.13/2015, we find that the requirements of a decree are absent. Accordingly, the other substantial question of law as to whether the decree dated 12.07.2017 meets the requirement of order XX Rule 6 of the CPC, which is answered in favour of the appellants defendants.
28. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of the substantial question of law as regards the contents of the decree dated 12.07.2017 and accordingly the only decree dated 12.07.2017 is set aside. However, as the other substantial question of law regarding the status of the vendor of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff namely Rajendra Prasad Singh has been held against the appellant defendants and in favour of the respondents plaintiffs, we uphold the judgment dated 03.07.2017. The appeal now stands remanded back to the learned Civil Judge Goalpara for preparation of the decree pursuant to the judgment dated 03.07.2017 in TA No.13/2015 as per the provisions of Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC.
29. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant