SAFIQUDDIN MAZUMDAR Vs. ALIMUDDIN BARLASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals register a challenge to the judgment and order dated 29. 07. 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi, in Title Appeal 5/2000 decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs. As the appeals involve same set of facts and have raised identical legal issues, those were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common decision.

(2.) I have heard Mr. BK Goswami, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, for the appellants in RSA 193/2000. The respondents in both the appeals have remained un-represented though the names of their learned Counsels had been duly reflected in the cause list. None appears for the appellants in RSA 194/2000 either.

(3.) FILTERING out the unnecessary details, the pleaded case of the parties have to be necessarily outlined at the threshold. While narrating the facts, for the sake of convenience, the parties in RSA 193/2000 would be referred to. The respondents 1 to 6 instituted a suit against the appellants and respondents 7,8,9,10 and 11 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hailakandi, being Title Suit No. 70/1992 praying for a decree inter alia for a declaration that the sale deed dated 26. 08. 1991 executed by the respondent No. 7 in favour of the appellants and others to be illegal, null and void and for a direction to the respondents 7 to get the sale deed dated 08. 01. 1991 executed in favour of the respondents 1 to 6 registered and an order to the respondents 8 and 9 to issue the " no objection certificate" for the registration of the said sale deed. According to the respondents 1 to 6/plaintiffs, the suit land was originally Government requisitioned land allotted to one Mohima Ranjan De, the father of respondent No. 7. As he was not a cultivator, the respondent No. 6 was allowed to cultivate the same. In the meantime, a periodic patta was issued by the Government for the said land. In course of time, the respondent No. 6 having intended to purchase the land and the respondent No. 7 having agreed to do so, the sale deed dated 08. 01. 1991 was executed by the respondent No. 7 on receipt of a consideration of Rs. 8,000/ -. Thereafter the respondent No. 7 submitted an application before the respondents 8 and 9 for "no objection certificate" for the registration of the said document. According to the plaintiffs, the respondent No. 7 subsequent thereto became lukewarm in the matter and with an intent to cheat and defraud the plaintiffs contrived to sale the suit land in favour of the appellants. The respondent No. 6 in the said circumstances submitted the sale deed before the respondent No. 10 who was the Sub-Registrar, Hailakandi, for registration thereof but the said authority refused to oblige in absence of the no objection certificate. The statutory period for registration of the sale deed therefore lapsed. The plaintiffs' further alleged that the respondents 8 and 9 also delayed the process by raising objections and eventually refused to issue the "no objection certificate" for which the sale deed could not be registered.