DHEBOR GOHAIN BARUAH Vs. ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Sattar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. R. De. The respondent No. 8 is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. P.J. Saikia.

(2.) This is a mutation dispute in respect of inherited property and the litigating parties are the successors of the original owner Nilakanta Gohain Baruah. The predecessor died in 1952 and he was survived by 5 sons and 6 daughters, including Smt. Kunwari Baruah (respondent No. 8). The following family tree will be of help in understanding the respective position of the litigants:- <P align=center>FAMILY TREE Land: Area: 3B 4K 16 Lessa Patta No. 187 Dag No. 195 Vill: Sowkham, Mouza-Nakari Dist.-Lakhimpur (Assam). <P align=center>

(3.) On the demise of Late Nilakanta Gohain Baruah, the names of 4 sons (barring 3rd son Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah), together with one daughter Smt. Kunwari Baruah were mutated in the Revenue records in respect of the estate measuring 3 Bigha 4 Katha 16 Lecha covered by Dag No. 195, K.P. Patta No. 187, of Village-Sowkham of Mouza-Nakari in Lakhimpur district. The reason for exclusion of the 3rd son (Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah) in the mutation exercise is not very clear. But the reflection of the name of Smt. Kunwari Baruah along with the four sons is projected to be on account of gift of the ?th share inherited by Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah, to Smt. Kunwari Baruah and her husband Lekhaneswar Baruah. However, the petitioner as the son of Gopal Singh Gohain Baruah contends that his father was not aware of the exclusion as the eldest legal heir Rudrakanta Gohain Baruah, had arranged for the mutation in 1962, after the predecessor died.