BIBHU CHARAN BARUA Vs. NANI GOPAL DEVA GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEREAS the appeal registers a challenge to the order dated 9. 4. 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat in Misc (J) Case No. 102/2007 arising out of Title Suit No. 1/2007 granting ad interim injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs restraining the petitioner, his men, agents etc. from dispossessing them (respondents-plaintiffs) from the suit property pending disposal of the suit, the revision petition is directed against an order of the same date passed in Misc (J) Case No. 4/2007 registered on an application filed under Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') in Title Execution Case No. 1/2007 by the respondent-plaintiff, thereby staying the proceeding till disposal of the aforementioned suit. By the said order, the application under Section 47 of the Code submitted for stay of the execution proceeding by the Opposite party/judgment debtor was also allowed.

(2.) MISC Case No. 1916/2007 is registered on an application under Order 41, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code filed by the appellant/petitioner seeking suspension of the order dated 9. 4. 2007 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 1/2007. The parties being the same, the subject matter common and the issue seeking determination by this Court being co-related, the appeal and the revision petition were taken up analogously and a common order would essentially dispose of the same.

(3.) THE facts comprising the background of the present litigations have to be stated. The petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of tea plantation. The Jogibheta Tea Estate situated at Mouza-Pollongapara, P. O. Chengajan in the district of Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as the 'tea estate') belongs to the Dakhinpat Satra, Majuli and is a Devottar property administered by its Satradhikar who represents the interest of the Satra and its properties for all intents and purposes. The tea estate was taken on lease for a period of 30 years with effect from 1. 1. 1965 by the appellant/petitioner along with three others on the strength of a registered deed of lease. The term of the above lease expired on 31. 12. 1995. According to the petitioner, thereafter the then Satradhikar Sri Sri Ramananda Deva Goswami agreed to lease out afresh the tea estate to him on annual rent for a period of 15 years with effect from 1. 1. 1996. Execution of the registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner in due time was also assured. Pending execution thereof, the petitioner claims that he was put in possession of the tea estate and was allowed to manage and administer its garden as a lessee of the Satra upon payment of the lease rent. The petitioner has insisted that he duly took over the possession of the tea estate on 1. 1. 1996 on the condition of paying lease rent which was initially fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- only per annum and has since then been administering the same as a lessee under the aforenamed Satra. Inspite of his repeated requests to the Satradhikar the lease deed, however, was not executed, though the latter accepted the lease rent from him by issuing receipts acknowledging him as the lessee in respect of the tea estate. On the demise of the Satradhikar Sri Sri Ramananda Deva Goswami the execution of the lease deed got further delayed and the same remains pending as on date. The appellant/petitioner has alleged that towards the end of the year 2003 the Tea Industry in general, witnessed a slump plunging it into a deep financial crisis affecting all tea gardens in the State resultantly prompting the State authorities to initiate various measures to retrieve the industry. Being similarly caught in the vertex the petitioner was compelled to defer the payment of labour wages and other statutory dues in the tea estate. A labour unrest surfaced, a common phenomenon which then plagued all small tea growers including the tea gardens selling green tea leaves. The petitioner has alleged that by exploiting the situation to their advantage the successor to the Satradhikar Sri Sri Nanigopal Deva Goswami hatched a conspiracy to dispossess him from the management of the tea estate dehors the process of law. It was thereafter that while the petitioner was runnning from pillar to post to tide over the sudden crisis crippling the garden, the said Satradhikar by his letter dated 20. 2. 2004 intimated the decision to take over the management of the tea estate from the appellant/petitioner. Though in his reply on 21. 2. 2004, the petitioner protested against the move contending that during the subsistence of the lease it was illegal and arbitrary, on that day itself (21. 2. 2004), he was forcibly dispossessed from the tea estate by the abovenamed Satradhikar. Being aggrieved he instituted Title Suit No. 43/2004 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 praying for a decree for recovery of possession of the tea estate. The said Satradhikar contested the suit by filing his written statement and adduced evidence. The learned court below by judgment and order dated 4. 12. 2006 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant/petitioner.