Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4) The appellants (defendants No.1 and 2) had filed their joint written statement, thereby denying the statements made in the plaint. It was denied that the appellant No.1 had ever worked as chowkidar of the respondents' school or allowed to stay in their house. It was denied that by registered sale deed dated 01.08.1963, 1 bigha land was sold to (i) Bapu Ram Das, (ii) Kiran Bala Das, (iii) Tilottama Das (respondent- plaintiff No.2), and (iv) Suniti Bala Das and it was stated that the land sold by Sale Deed No. 5023/1963 had no relevancy with the suit land. It was stated that there was no house, as such, there was no letting out of any house by the respondents No.1 and 2 or allowing brother of respondent No.2 to stay there. It was stated that the suit land was under occupation of Moti Ram Das (since deceased), the father of the appellants with full knowledge and adverse to the interest of the proforma respondent No.4 and thereafter, the appellants were in occupation thereof after the appellant No.2 obtained possession of 1K-5L land from the appellant No.1. Thereafter, by registered Sale Deed No. 3407/95, 15 lecha land was sold by the proforma respondent No.4 to the appellant No.1 and 1K-5L land was sold to appellant No.2 vide registered Sale Deed No.3406/95. The boundaries of the respective land of the appellants were demarcated and the house of appellant No.1 was covered by GMC Holding No.407 of Ward No.14. It is stated that the sale deed in favour of the appellants were registered prior to the registration of sale deed in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 and, as such, the subsequent sale deed was illegal and void and created no right in favour of the respondents and that the respondents No.1 and 2 did not have exclusive physical possession of the suit land. It was submitted that the appellants had purchased the same land which was in their possession prior to their purchase. It is submitted that although in the No objection Page No.# 6/27 Certificate obtained by the vendor for sale of the land, the four boundaries for 2 katha land was stated as North: Road, South: P.K. Baishya, East: D. Talukdar, West: T. Das, but the boundaries were wrongly mentioned in the registered sale deeds No. 3406/95 and 3407/95, there was a mistake in mentioning the four boundaries. However, the proforma respondent No.4 had died and, as such, Dipima Baruah, the wife of the deceased proforma respondent No.4 had executed and registered correction/ rectification deeds No. 9239/99 and 9270/99, thereby giving correct four boundaries of the land sold vide the said two sale deeds. It was stated that the houses of the appellants were duly assessed by GMC and they were paying the holding tax thereof to the GMC. It was also stated that the suit was barred under GMC/ GMDA Acts and accordingly, the appellants had prayed for dismissal of the suit.

11) It is submitted that the sale deeds Ext.9 and Ext.10 contained incorrect boundaries, but the correct boundaries was given in the No objection certificate granted by the GMDA, as such, the correct four boundaries were incorporated in the said two sale deeds by Dipima Baruah by executing and registered Deed of Rectification No. 9223 and 9290, but without obtaining it is submitted that the learned first appellate Court had discarded the two sale deeds and deeds of rectification in favour of the appellants merely because the wife of proforma respondent No.4, the lawful vendor did not take no objection from other heirs left behind by the deceased proforma respondent No.4, which, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is not sustainable because when the vendor had died, any one of his legal representative could execute the rectification deed in order to correctly describe the land sold by the two sale deeds and that it was mentioned in the said rectification deed that the other heirs of proforma respondent No.4 had no objection. It is submitted that the rectified boundaries was in accordance with the site map (Ext.Ga) and the No Objection Certificate (Ext.Gha), both containing the correct description of four boundaries of 2 katha land jointly purchased by the appellants. It is also submitted that the respondents No.1 and 2 had not challenged the two deeds of rectification (Ext.Unga and Ext. Cha), and there is no finding by the learned first appellate Court that the two sale deeds (Ext.9 and Ext.10) of the deeds of rectification (Ext.Unga and Ext. Cha) were liable to be cancelled, yet by granting decree in terms of the prayers made in the plaint, the said two sale deeds were held to be illegal and precept was issued for cancelling the said two sale deeds. It is also submitted that there was no issue as to whether the mutation of the names of the appellants in respect of the suit land was sustainable and although no revenue records were called for and proved by the respondents, yet, by allowing all the prayers made in the plaint, the order of mutation was erroneously set aside and in this connection, it is submitted that without a formal finding by the appellate Court, thereby declaring the title of the respondents No.1 and 2, the decree for cancelling the order of mutation was not sustainable because of the express bar under Regulation 154 (c) of the Assam Land And Revenue Regulation, 1886.

Discussions on substantial question of law No.(i):-

29) It is seen that the appellant No.1 had purchased 15 lecha land from the proforma respondent No.4 by virtue of registered sale deed No.3407 dated 18.05.1995 (Ext.9/ Ext.Ka). The appellant No.2 had purchased 1 katha 5 lecha land from proforma respondent No.4 vide registered sale deed No. 3406 dated 18.05.1995 (Ext.10/ Ext.Kha).

Thus, both the appellants had purchased 2 katha land from proforma respondent No.4. It is not in dispute that by virtue of deed of rectification/ correction bearing deed No.9223/99 (Ext.Unga) dated 15.12.1999 and deed No.9270/99 (Ext.Cha) dated 16.12.1999, the boundaries of sale deed No.3407 and 3406 were respectively rectified by Dipima Baruah, the wife of the vendor, namely, Tarun Chandra Baruah. In this regard the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 had submitted that the two deeds of rectification were invalid documents which were void ab intio because the vendor who had died before the deed of rectification was executed, but the executants did not procure any "no objection certificate"

from the said daughter of the deceased vendor. In this regard the Court is of the considered opinion that neither the legality and validity of the said two deeds of rectification, nor the power and authority of Dipima Baruah to execute and register the said two deeds of rectification bearing deed No.9223/99 dated 15.12.1999 (Ext.Unga) and deed No.9270/99 dated 16.12.1999 (Ext.Cha) has been challenged, questioned or assailed either by the respondents No.1 and 2 in the plaint or by any surviving legal representative of the vendor/ proforma respondent No.4 (since deceased). It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the effect of the said two deeds of rectification would take effect on and from the date of registration of the two sale deeds bearing No.3406/95 and 3407/95 both dated 18.05.1995 and no legal proposition has been brought to the notice of the Court that such submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants is without basis.