IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) CRP No. 258 of 2014 Sri Bhopal Thapa, Son of Late Gore Thapa, Bye Lane Manik Chandra Path, S.J. Road, Guwahati-8, District: Kamrup, Assam. ….. Petitioner -Versus- Smti Riva Devi Shaw, Wife of Sri Nandalal Shaw, Resident of Sati Jaymati Road, Athgaon, Guwahati-781008, Assam. …… Respondent 1) Sri Deepak Kumar Jain, Son of Sri Champalal Jain, Fancy Bazar, Barua Market, Guwahati-781001. 2) Central Bank of India, Lakhara Chariali Branch, Brajabala Bhawan, National Highway-37, P.O.-Saukuchi, District : Kamrup, Assam. 3) Sri Hiren Bey Kathar, Son of Gunaram Mikir, Jyotikuchi, Beltola, P.S.-Dispur, Guwahati-6, District-Kamrup, Assam. 4) Sri Manoj Kumar Patowary, Lakhora, Lalganesh, P.O. –Saukuchi, Guwahati – 781034, District-Kamrup, Assam. 5) Sri Hiraj Patowary, Son of Late Guneswar Patowary, Lakhora, Lalganesh, P.O. – Saukuchi, Guwahati0781034, District-Kamrup, Assam. CRP No.258 of 2014 Page 1 of 20 6) Sri Deepak Patowary, Son of Late Guneswar Patowary, Lakhoa, Lalganesh, P.O.-Saukuchi, Guwahati-781034, District-Kamrup, Assam. 7) Sri Naba Kumar Patowary, Son of Late Guneswar Patowary, Lakhora, Lalganesh, P.O.-Saukuchi, Guwahati-781034, District-Kamrup, Assam. ……… Performa Respondents. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY For the Petitioner : Mr. H. Das, Advocate. For the Respondent : None appears. Dates of hearing : 20.08.2014, 25.08.2014 & 01.09.2014 Date of Judgment : 01.09.2014 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral) In this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Sri Bhopal Thapa who is defendant No.8 in Title Suit no. 345 of 2011 has challenged the order dated 02.07.2014 rejecting the prayer for holding the suit as not maintainable. [2] To understand the case it is necessary to state the essential facts. The plaintiff Smt Riva Devi Shaw instituted Title Suit No. 345 of 2011 in which one Deepak Kumar Jain was arraigned as defendant No.1. Central Bank of India was impleaded as Defendant No.2 where CRP No.258 of 2014 Page 2 of 20 as the defendants No.3 & 8 are private opposite parties. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Smt Charu Prabha Baruah became owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha covered by Dag No. 351 of K.P. Patta No. 87 in Revenue Village Jyotikuchi in Beltola Mouza, Kamrup, Guwahati, by purchasing the same from its original owner Guna Ram Mikir vide registered deed dated 04.06.1967. This Guna Ram Mikir was the father of the defendant No.3 in the present case. The seller handed over the possession of the land to Charu Prabha Baruah following execution of sale deed and thereafter, she obtained mutation in her favour in the records of rights in place of Guna Ram Mikir. She also had been paying land revenue regularly in respect of the land described in Schedule-B to the plaint and being in the peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof sold 1 Katha 10 Lechas out of the said suit land to the plaintiff on 09.03.2007 by executing a registered sale deed No. 3052 of 2007 with due and prior permission of the concerned authorities. Plaintiff was handed over possession of the land by Charu Prabha Baruah and she also obtained mutation in the records of right with respect to the same land. While the plaintiff was in continuous and peaceful possession of the Schedule-A land which is a part of land described in Schedule-B of the plaint, she was dispossessed by the police personnel on 29.08.2011 forcefully. Upon enquiry she discovered that her dispossession was done consequent to a decree passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati at the instance of defendant No.2, Central Bank. The plaintiff came to know on enquiry that defendant No.1 had mortgaged Schedule-A land in favour of the defendant no.2 Central Bank while standing Guarantee for loan granted to defendants No.4, 5 & 6. The plaintiff thereafter obtained certified copies of the orders and found that the aforesaid orders were passed in O.A. 25 of 2011 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati. The records reveal that the defendant No.1 claimed to have purchased the same land on 16.07.1983 from the defendant No. 3 who is none other than the son of Guna Ram Mikir i.e. the person who had sold the whole of the land described in Schedule-B including the Schedule-A land to Charu Prabha Baruah, CRP No.258 of 2014 Page 3 of 20 the vendor of the plaintiff, on 16.07.1983. The plaintiff was astonished to find that when father of the defendant No. 3 had exhausted his title by sale of the Schedule-B land to Smt. Charu Prabha Baruah on 04.06.1967, the defendant No. 3 could not have been left with any title to Schedule-A land which is only a part of Schedule-B land and thus, fraud was perpetrated by showing a sale of the Schedule-A land in favour of the defendant No.1, who on turn mortgaged the land in favour of defendant No.2. Neither the defendant No.1 had ever any possession over the land in question nor had he acquired any title to the suit land and so purported sale in favour of defendant No.1 followed by his mortgage of the same with defendant No.2 in securing financial assistance to defendants No. 4 to 6 was a fraudulent and collusive act and thus, purchase of defendant No.1 and subsequent mortgage in favour of the defendant No.2 are vitiated by fraud. With these basic facts, plaintiff approached the learned Civil Court with a prayer for decree declaring that sale deed dated 16.07.1983 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.1 and mortgaged by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 vide deed dated 06.10.1994 and the consequent certificate issued by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati on 08.04.2003 and 28.04.2003 in O.A. No. 25 of 2001 are all fraudulent, null and void ab initio etc. [3] Defendant No.8 submitted a written statement in the aforesaid suit denying the case of the plaintiff and stated that he purchased the suit land by way of auction sale pursuant to order passed in O.A. No. 25 of 2001 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati. He being the bonafide purchaser cannot be deprived from the fruit of the auction sale. Along with the written statement the defendant No.8 submitted as many as 5 draft issues and at the foot of the same he made a prayer that the application be admitted and the suit be dismissed as not maintainable. It is not shown under which provision of law the application was filed. Although the defendant No.8 claimed that the same was a preliminary objection but it does CRP No.258 of 2014 Page 4 of 20 not appear that the same was filed in appropriate time for framing preliminary issue under Order XLI Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also does not appear that this is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Be that as it may, the learned trial court heard both sides on this application containing 5 draft issues and held that the case involved disputed question of fact which needs a fullfledged trial. In the result, the preliminary objection was rejected. [4] I have heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner who has placed reliance on following Judgments: (2000) 4 SCC 406 Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank (2000) 7 SCC 357 United Bank of India vs. Abhijit Tea Co.(P) Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 569 Punjab National Bank. Vs. O.C. Krishnan [5] Mr. Das submits that under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as RDB), the plaintiff was at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate tribunal and certainly the suit is not maintainable in view of specific bar under the RDB Act. [6] First of all, it is necessary to understand as to what was the nature and character of the application filed by the defendant No.2 on 21.05.2012 leading to which the learned trial court heard parties and passed impugned order on 02.07.2014. The Defendant No.8 in the meantime had filed the written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff on facts. While it is the case of the plaintiff that fraud has been perpetrated on her by the defendants, more particularly defendants No.1 & 3 and the defendants No.4, 5 & 6, the defendant No.8 is definitely not in a position to answer the questions raised by the plaintiff as against other defendants. Defendant No.8 came into the picture only after order was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the instance of the defendant No.2 and CRP No.258 of 2014 Page 5 of 20 thereafter, issued certificate for auction sale of mortgaged property. The defendant No.8 came into the picture only after the property was to be sold and he had no occasion to answer as to the events that had taken place on the prior dates. The defendant no.8, however, by filing written statement has denied all the averments made in the plaint including allegation of fraud perpetrated on the plaintiff.