Bisha Barman and 3 Ors v. Syedur Zaman and 7 Ors

ORDER Date : 06-03-2024 This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhubri in Misc Appeal No. 04/2019 whereby the order dated 23.07.2019 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 76/2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 43/2018 was affirmed.

¶2It is seen from the records that the petitioners herein as plaintiffs had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 43/2018 seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land described in the schedule to the plaint; for cancellation of various Sale Deeds, for corrections of records of right and for permanent injunction. Along with the said suit an injunction application was filed seeking ad-interim temporary injunction against the defendants who were the opposite parties not to dispossess the plaintiffs/petitioners from the suit land till disposal of the Title Suit. The said injunction application was registered and numbered as Misc(J) Case No. 76/2018.

¶3This Court have duly perused the injunction application wherein it is the specific stand of the petitioners that they are in possession of the suit land and in paragraph No. 8 of the said injunction application it was mentioned that the opposite parties therein were threatening the petitioners to dispossess them from the suit land.

¶4To the said injunction application, a written objection was filed by the opposite parties who are the respondents herein stating inter-alia that the opposite parties being in possession of the suit land since 11.09.1985 as the lawful owners and as such, the question of threatening of the petitioners and the reasonable apprehension of dispossessing the petitioners from the suit land Page No.# 4/5 does not arise. This aspect is seen from the paragraph 13 of the written objection.

¶5Pursuant thereto, the learned Trial Court passed the order dated

23.07.2019 thereby rejecting the injunction application. In the said order, the learned Trial Court has observed that how can both the parties be in possession of the suit land at the same time and as the learned Trial Court was unable to know as to who was in possession of the suit land, the prayer for temporary injunction was rejected.

¶6Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Dhubri which was registered and numbered as Misc Appeal No. 04/2019. The learned First Appellate Court vide the impugned order opined that the plaintiffs, who were appellants therein, failed to prove the prima facie case that they were possessing the land either by cultivating or through implied possession. The learned First Appellate Court further opined that if the appellants/petitioners herein at all were in possession of the land why the Appellants as plaintiffs did not seek the relief of confirmation of possession as an ancillary relief. It was further opined by the learned Appellate Court that the land in question is the subject matter of dispute since 1970 and the respondents have claimed to be enjoying this land since 1985. It is on that account the Appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc(J) Case No. 76/2018.

¶7Being aggrieved, the instant proceeding under Article 227 has been filed.

¶8This Court having taken note of the relevant pleadings before the learned Trial Court as well as the impugned orders finds it relevant to observe that both the parties claimed to be in possession of the suit land. It is well settled that the status of the property as on the date of filing of the suit is required to be Page No.# 5/5 maintained. Under such circumstances, the learned Trial Court or the learned First Appellate Court ought to have been directed that a status-quo as regards the possession to have been maintained, so that during the pendency of the suit there is no further multiplicity of proceedings. The above principles being well settled for consideration of injunction application, having been disregarded, this Court is the opinion that the same requires to be remedied.

¶9Accordingly, this Court therefore, disposes of the instant proceedings directing both the parties to maintain status-quo as regards the possession over the suit land as on today till disposal of the suit. It is made clear that the status-quo order is limited only to possession and nothing further.

¶10This Court also finds it very relevant to observe that the orders passed in interlocutory proceedings are only for deciding those interlocutory proceedings and such orders passed shall not affect the merits of the suit which would be required to be decided upon evidence as such the orders impugned in the instant proceedings as well as the instant order shall not influence the learned Trial Court in the disposal of the suit.

¶11With the above observations and directions, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010123482022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCRP/129/2022o BISHAoBARMANoANDo3oORSo S/OoLATEoKHAGENoBARMAN,oR/OoVILL-HATIPOTAoPART-I,oP.O.-HATIPOTA,o P.S.-CHAPAR,oDIST-DHUBRI,oASSAM 2:oUTTAMoBARMAN oLATEoAPUSAoBARMAN oR/OoVILL-HATIPOTAoPART-I oP.O.-HATIPOTA oP.S.-CHAPAR oDIST-DHUBRI oASSAM 3:oSMTI.oDUPURIoSINGHA oW/OoLATEoAJIToSINGHA oR/OoGAURANGARTARIoPART-II 4:oSMTIoPANCHAMIoDEVI oW/OoNOBINoBARMAN oR/OoVILL-oPUKHURIPA oPART-III oP.O.-SILGARA oP.S.-CHAPAR oDIST-oDHUBRI oASSAo VERSUSo SYEDURoZAMANoANDo7oORSo LEGALoHEIRoOFoLATEoREKEBUDDINoAHMED,oR/OoVILL-KAZIPARA,oP.O.o ANDoP.S.-CHAPAR,oDIST-DHUBRI 2:ZAKIROToZAMAN oLEGALoHEIRoOFoLATEoREKEBUDDINoAHMED oR/OoVILL-KAZIPARA Page No.# 2/5 P.O. AND P.S.-CHAPAR DIST-DHUBRI 3:HABIBAR ZAMAN LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REKEBUDDIN AHMED R/O VILL-KAZIPARA P.O. AND P.S.-CHAPAR DIST-DHUBRI 4:KAMRUL ZAMAN LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REKEBUDDIN AHMED R/O VILL-KAZIPARA P.O. AND P.S.-CHAPAR DIST-DHUBRI 5:JAHIROT ZAMAN LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REKEBUDDIN AHMED R/O VILL-KAZIPARA P.O. AND P.S.-CHAPAR DIST-DHUBRI 6:NABIBA ZAMAN LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MONIRUR ZAMAN R/O VILL-KAZIPARA P.O. AND P.S.-CHAPAR DIST-DHUBRI 7:NASIR UZ ZAMAN LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MONIRUR ZAMAN R/O VILL-KAZIPARA P.O. AND P.S.-CHAPAR DIST-DHUBRI 8:MIRSAD ZAMAN LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MONIRUR ZAMAN R/O VILL-KAZIPARA P.O. AND P.S.-CHAPAR DIST-DHUBR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B D DEKA Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH