Title Suit/561/2006

Page | 1 HIGH COURT FORM NO. (J) 2 HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT DISTRICT: CACHAR IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF NO.1, CACHAR AT SILCHAR Present: K. Goswami, AJS Thursday, the 31st day of October, 2019 Title Suit No. 561 of 2006 Sri Bibeka Nanda Nath alias Babu Nath S/O. Late Brojo Mohan Nath R/o Vill- Kazidahar Part-III, Pargona Banraj, P.O Narsingpur-788115 P.S- Sonai, Dist. Cachar, Assam. ……….Plaintiff -Versus- On the death of Nirode Mohan Nath alias Bolo Nath, s/o Late Jay Mohan Nath, his legal representatives are: 1(1) Sri Bapan Nath 1(2) Sri Suben Nath 1(3) Sri Saju Nath All are the sons of Late Nirode Mohan Nath. 1(4) Smt. Sipi Rani Nath 1(5) Smt. Suma Rani Nath 1(6) Smt. Jhuma Rani Nath 1(7) Jhumi Rani Nath Title Suit No.561 of 2006 Page | 2 All are the daughters of Late Nirode Mohan Nath. 1(8) Smt. Swapna Rani Nath W/o Late Nirode Mohan Nath All are the residents of village Clever house (Nutan Bazar) Pargana - Chatlahaor, P.O-Narsingpur-788115 P.S- Dholai, Dist. Cachar, Assam Alternative address: Village-Kazidahar Pt.III, Ph. Banraj, P.O. Narsingpur-78815, P.S- Sonai, Dist-Cachar, Assam. …………..Principal Defendants 2. Sri Makhon Lal Nath S/o Late Rajendra Chandra Nath alias Late Rajendra Lal Nath Village- Kazidahar Part-III, Pargana - Banraj, P.O- Narsingpur-788115, P.S. Sonai, Dist. Cachar, Assam. 3. Sri Mrinal Kanti Nath alias Sri Mukta Nath S/o Late Mano Mohan Nath alias Late Mani Nath, Village Salgangapar, Ph. Chatlahaor, P.O. Narsingpur-788115, P.S-Dholai, Dist-Cachar, Assam ………… Proforma Defendants This suit coming on for final hearing on 28-08-2019 and 19-09-2019 in the presence of – For the plaintiff: - Learned Counsel Mr. Dipak Chakravarty Learned Counsel Mr. Suddhasatta Choudhury Title Suit No.561 of 2006 Page | 3 For the defendants: - Learned Senior Counsel Mr. A.K. Paul Choudhury Learned Counsel Mr. M.K.Bhattacharjee and having stood for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following judgment:- J U D G M E N T 1. This is a suit for declaration of forgery of two registered instruments, cancellation of the said registered instruments and permanent injunction. The plaintiff’s case: 2. The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case as set forth in the plaint may be portrayed as thus: The plaintiff’s grandfather Late Jay Mohan Nath was the absolute owner in possession of the schedule-I land described in the plaint which was also admitted by all the parties. Jay Mohan Nath out of natural love and affection donated the schedule-I land to the plaintiff on 10-10-1969 by a registered deed of gift which was equally admitted by all the parties. The plaintiff was a minor at the date of said gift and his mother accepted the same in his favour. A similar gift was made of the land mentioned in the schedule-II of the plaint by Jay Mohan Nath to his another grandson Sri Mrinal Kanti Nath, the proforma defendant No.3 on that very date i.e. on 10.10.1969 by a registered deed of gift which had also been admitted by all the concerned parties. The proforma defendant No.3 was also a minor and his mother accepted the same in his favour. The factum of minority of the plaintiff and the proforma defendant No.3 was not mentioned in the respective gift deeds. It has been contended that since the time of the said two gifts, the lands of the schedule-I and II were completely separated not only from the other properties of Jay Mohan Nath but also in between the two schedules themselves by metes and bounds and by putting ails etc. amicably. Upon attaining majority, the plaintiff and the proforma defendant No.3 possessed their respective plots of lands peacefully for considerable period of time. The plaintiff used to pay land revenue through his grandfather Jay Mohan Nath and after his demise through his granduncle Labanya Nath. Title Suit No.561 of 2006 Page | 4 3. It has been alleged that on 06-02-1995 the original principal defendant conspired with the proforma-defendant No.2 to put a bamboo fencing around the land of the schedule-III below with 5/6 labourers to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff raised objections. The original principal defendant and the proforma defendant No.2 could not succeed because of the intervention of the plaintiff’s granduncle Labanya Nath who was a common relative of both the parties. He asked the principal defendant as to why he was trying to put fencing over the lands of the plaintiff to which the principal defendant replied that he had purchased the said land from the plaintiff but he could not show any documents then. The plaintiff denied that he ever sold any land to the principal defendant. Having been suspicious of commission of forgery, the plaintiff made an enquiry at the Sub-Registrar’s Office, but he could not trace out any documents as details were not disclosed by the principal defendant. As the threats to the plaintiff continued, he was compelled to submit a petition under Section 144 of the CrPC dated 18-02-1996 before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar who directed the Officer-in-Charge, Sonai P.S. to enquire and submit a detailed report. The plaintiff alleged that the principal defendant colluded with the police, and as a result no report was submitted and the petition was rendered untraceable. In the mean time, the plaintiff cultivated and grew ‘Sail’ paddy without any obstructions from the principal defendant, but when it was ripening in the 1st part of November, 1995, the principal defendant again conspired to cut it off for which the plaintiff was again compelled to submit a petition under Sections 144/145 CrPC dated 9-11-1995 before the learned Additional District Magistrate who was again directed the police to submit a report. And this time, though the Police submitted a Report dated 17-11-1995 which was received by the P.I. office vide No.P.O. 509/95 but thence the principal defendant managed its suppression at the Magistracy Branch of the Collectorate. Being unable to locate the Police Report dated 17.11.1995, for the subsistence of the apprehension of the imminent breach of the public peace and tranquility in the locality, the plaintiff was again compelled to submit a fresh petition under Sections 144/145 CrPC dated 25-03-1996 before the learned Additional District Magistrate. And simultaneously, being fed up with the police, the plaintiff lodged a complaint against the police before the learned Deputy Commissioner on 24-05-1996. Thereafter, the plaintiff having located the police Title Suit No.561 of 2006 Page | 5 reports swore an affidavit in support of his petition before Sri A.N.B. Singha- the learned Executive Magistrate to attach the disputed land. But the learned Magistrate though drew up a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC on 28-05-1996, but did not pass an order of attachment and asked the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned P.S. to make an enquiry and report on the petition filed by the 1st party as the earlier report submitted was six and half months old and fixed 15-06-1996 for the same and for written statement by both the parties. On the date fixed i.e. on 15-06-1996, the learned Magistrate discovered that the police again played a hide and seek game by forwarding a report dated 03.06.1996 praying for a proceeding under Section 144/145 CrPC, but did not forward any report as per the order dated 28-05-1996. The learned Magistrate though issued a reminder by the order dated 16-06-1996 to the Officer-in-Charge, Sonai P.S., but the police submitted a false report seeing which the learned Magistrate got misled and thus rejected the prayer for attachment without hearing the 1st party-plaintiff on 19-07-1996. The plaintiff submitted his written statement on 15-06-1996 and the 2nd party thereof filed their written statement on 06-09-1996. 4. During cross-examination on 15-10-1996, the 1st party/plaintiff herein was confronted with suggestions of the alleged purchases by two documents by the original principal defendant dated 22-06-1976 and 31-03-1977 from him which was denied by him as the same must be by forgery and impersonations as the plaintiff never sold any land to the principal defendant or anybody else. As such, the plaintiff in due course of time prayed to the Deputy Commissioner for appropriate action and on 19.07.1996 he applied for certified true copies of the alleged sale deeds which he received on 31-12-1996 and found that though the 1st one was dated 22-06-1976 but the 2nd one was dated 11.03.1977 and not 31.03.1977 as mentioned in the written statement. In the meantime, the case having been transferred to another learned Magistrate Sri. M.C. Chakraborty, though the 1st party examined himself on 15-10-1996 as aforesaid and also produced other witnesses on that date and on other dates but on this or that count the learned Magistrate did not record their testimony. Even dates were not posted or not timely posted in the Court- Diary for which as it appeared later that the case proceeded ex-parte.

Load more