Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The case of the plaintiff is that Late Dandiram Kumar and Raheswar Kumar were the exclusive owner and possessor of a plot of land covered by Patta No. 25. After disposal of land by various manner, a plot of land measuring 3 bighas 4 kathas 7½ lechas remained in the hands of Sri Ananta Kumar, son of Late Dandi Ram Kumar; Sri Arun Kumar and Sri Jagadish Kumar, both sons of Raheswar Kumar and these three persons jointly executed a power of attorney, appointing and empowering Sri Ranjit Kumar Dey, son of Late Dasarath Kumar Dey, vide registered deed No. 5299, dated 16.10.1996, to sell the above mentioned 3 bighas 4 kathas 7½ lechas of land. Thereafter, Sri Ranjit Kumar Dey, on the strength of the aforesaid power of attorney, being deed No. 5299, dated 16.10.1996, sold 1 katha 5 lechas of land out of the aforesaid total land of 3 bighas 4 kathas 7½ lechas to Sri Ajit Chandra Das, by executing a registered deed of sale, bearing deed No. 3422/98, dated 23.06.1998. Thereafter, Sri Ajit Chandra Das, after eight years, sold the aforesaid land to Smti. Moutushi Dutta/plaintiff, vide registered deed of sale, bearing No. 10870/2007, dated 31.08.2007, through his power of attorney holder Sri Suman Das Gupta. The power of attorney being deed No.3151, dated 07.06.2006 was executed by Ajit Chandra Das, in favour of Suman Das Gupta, authorising him to sale his land. At the time of execution of the sale deed by Sri Ranjit Kumar Dey, in favour of Sri Ajit Chandra Das, the boundary of the land was shown wrongly, and as such subsequently, vide a deed of rectification, being deed No. 10194/08, dated 18.07.2008, the boundary was rectified, and similarly, the boundary in respect of the land sold to the plaintiff was also rectified, vide rectification deed No. 11049, dated 18.08.2008. In the month of March, 2008, when the plaintiff started construction of boundary wall and was about to affix a gate on the southern side of the land, the defendant appeared and started claiming the suit land to be his own and forcibly tried to enter upon there, but could not succeed. However, finally the defendant in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, forcibly entered upon the suit land, with the help of some hired women and took possession of the same.

10. It appears that while deciding the issue No. 1, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff had pleaded that she bought the suit land from Sri Ajit Chandra Das, who executed a power of attorney, being deed No. 3151, dated 07.06.2006, in favour of one Sri Suman Das Gupta to sell his land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas, and the boundary given in the said power of attorney was also wrongly shown earlier and therefore, a deed of rectification, being deed No. 10192, dated 18.07.2008, was executed. Thereafter, the said Sri Suman Das Gupta, being the attorney of Sri Ajit Chandra Das, ultimately sold the aforesaid 1 katha 5 lechas of land to the plaintiff Moutushi Dutta by executing a registered deed of sale, bearing No. 10870/2007, dated 31.08.2007, and in view of the rectification deed, the boundary in the sale deed was corrected and the dag number of the land purchased by her is 67 (old)/1988 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 25/139 (old)/831(new) of village Jyotikuchi, under Mouza Beltola, in the district of Kamrup.

other's land, West :-Mr. Purkayastha. The learned first appellate Court held that although the plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the land that has been sold by the original owner in favour of her vendor Ajit Chandra Das, but the boundary does not speak so and from the four boundary it cannot be said that the land purchased by the plaintiff from her vendor, is the one and the same land that has been purchased by her from the original owner. Further, it reveals that subsequently vide rectification deed Exhibit-4 dated 18.07.2008, the four boundary of the sale deed standing in the name of the Ajit Ch Das was rectified as under - North:- Land of landlord; South 16 ft. wide road, East -Land of Robi Paul, West :- land of Mr. Purkayastha and Lalmohan Sarkar. It has also been held that it reveals that the rectification deed -Ext.4 was executed by Ranjit Kumar Dey, the POA holder of the original owners, without being authorised by Ananta Kumar, Arun Kumar and Jagadish Kumar to execute such rectification deed and hence Ext.4 was executed by Ranjit Kumar Dey without lawful authority and since the rectification deed in respect of first sale deed was not lawful, the subsequent rectification deed will not bear any value in the eye of law. Thereafter, it has held that the four boundaries of land sold through Ext. 3 and 8 were different and from the rectification deed Ext.-4 and 9 reveals that after 10 years of execution of the first sale deed, the Ext.-3, the said two sale deeds are given a common boundary to portray a picture that the land under Ext.-3 and 8 is one and the same and is having an altogether different location. Thereafter, discussing two decisions of this Court in Saljing A Sangma(supra), where in it was held that where the subject matter of the suit is of immoveable property, such property can be identified by boundaries and numbers in record of settlement of survey and the plaint shall specify the boundary or number. It has discussed another decision in M/s Roy and Co (supra), where in it was held that in case of conflict between the area and the boundary, the boundary will prevail.

18. From the above discussions, and also from the record of the learned trial Court as well as from the record of learned first appellate Court and from the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, it appears that the learned first appellate Court, while deciding the issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, had ignored the Ext.2 i.e. the general power of attorney, being Deed No. 5299/1996, dated 16.10.1996, in deciding the authority of Sri Ranjit Kumar Dey to execute the deed of rectification, bearing deed No. 10194/2008, dated 18.07.2008 (Ext.-4). Though some mistakes had been committed in describing the boundary in Ext.-2, but it was detected later on and the same was rectified, vide deed of rectification, bearing deed No. 10194/2008, dated 18.07.2008 (Ext-4), and had the learned first appellate Court considered these two exhibits in its proper perspective, then the learned first appellate Court would not have arrived at the conclusion, so discussed herein above. The finding so recorded by the learned first appellate Court, thus appears to be perverse. And here involves the first substantial question of law.