MUSST. ASIA KHATUN Vs. PATRIK URANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr A Ganguly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in both the appeals and Ms P Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, in both the appeals.

(2.) Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and Decree dtd. 1/8/2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (hereinafter, referred to the Learned First Appellate Court), in Title Appeal No. 4/2024, thereby confirming the judgment and decree, 4/1/2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1), Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (hereinafter, referred to as the Learned Trial Court), in Title Suit No. 39/2019. As both the appeals arise out of Title Suit No. 39 of 2019, and challenges the judgment and decree dtd. 01/08/2024, passed by the Learned First Appellate Court, both the appeals are taken up together to ascertain as to whether any substantial question of law can be formulated in terms with Sec. 100 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code"). For the purpose of ascertaining the said, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts, which led to the filing of the present appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, in the same status as they stood before the Learned Trial Court.

(3.) The respondents herein, as plaintiffs had filed a suit before the Learned Trial Court, which was registered and numbered as Title Suit 39 of 2019, seeking declaration of their right, title and interest, over the suit land, as described in the plaint, along with recovery of Khas possession; for a decree for cancellation of the mutation of the defendants, as well as for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that a plot of land admeasuring 7 Bighas 0 Katha 4 Lechas, was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. One Simon Orang, who was the father of the plaintiff No. 1 and the grandfather of the plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 was the pattadar of the said land. After the death of Simon Orang, the names of the plaintiffs were mutated. On 4/4/2013, the name of the defendant No. 1 was mutated by the Circle Officer, Naoboicha, over a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha, 2 kathas, 10 lechas, which is a part of the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, admeasuring 7 Bighas 0 Katha 4 Lechas. It was alleged that on 17/7/2013, the defendant No. 2's name was also mutated against another plot of land admeasuring 4 bighas, 4 kathas 4 lechas. This land which was also mutated in the name of the defendant No. 2, was a part of the ancestral land belonging to the plaintiffs. At this stage, it is very pertinent to mention that a land in question fell within the tribal belt, as constituted by the State Government, in terms with Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, "the Regulation"). Taking into account that the mutation was carried out behind the back of the plaintiffs as alleged, the plaintiffs filed a Review Appeal No. 4 of 2015, but as the plaintiffs were not satisfied with the outcome of the said Appeal. It was also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had also filed a Misc Case No. 127/2014, under Sec. 107/145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CrPC"), before the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, but the prayer so made in the said application was rejected by an order dtd. 28/9/2018. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs paid land revenue over the suit land, till 2013 and since then the Mouzadar refused to accept payment of land revenue from the plaintiffs. It is under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have sought for the relief, as already mentioned hereinabove.