Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010117652024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/57/2025 SAMIRAN KARMAKAR S/O LATE SACHINDRA KARMAKAR, R/O VILL UTTAR BORBIL, P.S. HOWRAGHAT, MOUZA PHULONI, DISTR KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS CHANDIKA GOGOI AND ANR D/O LATE HARA KANTA GOGOI RESIDENT OF PHULONI GAON, PO LANGHIN TINIALI, PS DOKMOKA, MOUZA PHULONI, DIST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM 782481 2:SMTI DINESWARI GOGOI D/O LATE HARA KANTA GOGOI RESIDENT OF PHULONI GAON PO LANGHIN TINIALI PS DOKMOKA MOUZA PHULONI DIST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 78248 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR A K AZAD,MR. S R BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3481/2024 SAMIRAN KARMAKAR Page No.# 2/5 S/O LATE SACHINDRA KARMAKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UTTAR BORBIL PS HOWRAGHAT MOUZA PHULONI DIST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM VERSUS CHANDIKA GOGOI AND ANR D/O LATE HARA KANTA GOGOI RESIDENT OF PHULONI GAON PO LANGHIN TINIALI PS DOKMOKA MOUZA PHULONI DIST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 782481 2:SMTI DINESWARI GOGOI D/O LATE HARA KANTA GOGOI RESIDENT OF PHULONI GAON PO LANGHIN TINIALI PS DOKMOKA MOUZA PHULONI DIST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 782481 ------------ Advocate for : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY Advocate for : appearing for CHANDIKA GOGOI AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 14.05.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury for the appellant Sri Samiran Karmakar, who has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2023 and 30.11.2023 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Karbi Anglong in Title Appeal No. 06/2022, Page No.# 3/5 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 06.07.2022 and decree dated 20.07.2022, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karbi Anglong in Title Suit No. 01/2017 (new) corresponding to Title Suit No. 04/2013 (old). It is submitted that the title suit was brought up by Smt. Chandika Gogoi against the appellant Sri Samiran Karmakar, for declaration of right title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land, stating that the land measuring in 2 Bighas, 2 Kathas and 16 Lechas appertaining to Dag No. 26/181, 27/181 and periodic patta number 48 under Mauza Phuloni. 2. It is submitted that the plaintiff's father, late Hara Kanta Gogoi was in possession of the aforesaid parcel of land since 1975, and he got patta over the said plot of cultivable land and have also paid land revenue. At that time, the total plot of land was measuring 4 Bighas, 4 Kathas, 16 Lechas covered by Dag No. 181 and A/P No. 450 and 369 respectively. Late Hara Kanta Gogoi during his life time leased the land to be cultivated for a term of 1 year to late Chitta Ranjan Das during his life time. Chitta Ranjan Das had been paying the lease amount to the plaintiff regularly and he expired in the year 2005. He was the maternal uncle of the present appellant Shri Samiran Karmakar. After the death of late Chitta Ranjan Das, the present appellant illegally occupied the plot of cultivable land, which impelled the plaintiff to file a case before the ARO, Phuloni Circle against the present appellant and the ARO passed an order dated 16.03.2007, stating that the patta which was issued in the name of Samiran Karmakar was found to be irregular as some anomalies were found in the official record and a direction was made to issue a fresh patta measuring 2 Kathas only to the present appellant. 3. The plaintiff brought up the suit as the defendant/appellant kept occupying the suit land. It is submitted that vide judgment and order dated 06.07.2022, Page No.# 4/5 the suit was decreed with cost. The learned Trial Court has erroneously decreed the suit on the basis of certified copies of original documents. If the respondent/plaintiff was the lawful owner of the suit land, then why did the respondent/plaintiff fail to produce and exhibit the original documents of the annual khiraj patta of the suit land along with the periodic khiraj patta of the same suit land as well as the original order dated 16.03.2007, passed by the ARO/ASO. It is further submitted that when a title appeal was preferred by the appellants, the Appellate court had erroneously observed in the judgment and order dated 20.11.2023 in Title Appeal No. 6/2022, that the aforementioned documents were proved in original. This is a gross error apparent on the face of the record. The appellant has been highly prejudiced as the evidence was not carefully scrutinized, which reflects contradictory comments on the documents produced in support of the title suit vis-a-vis the title appeal. 4. It is further submitted that this suit is also barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in the year 2005 and the confirmation for possession was filed in the year 2013. 5. I have considered the submissions at the bar. 6. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- A) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs/Respondents for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession filed in the year 2013 is barred by section 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the cause of action arose in the year 2005 as pleaded in the plaint ? B) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs/Respondents is maintainable in view of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as the plaintiffs/Respondents claimed lease amount from the Page No.# 5/5 Defendant/Appellant treating him as lessee? C) Whether the impugned judgment and decree declaring confirmation of possession of the said land in favour of the plaintiffs/Respondents is not perverse as the plaintiffs/Respondents failed to prove his possession over the suit land? 7. If any other substantial question of law arises it shall be taken up at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within 3 (three) weeks. 9. Meanwhile, call for the Trial Court Records of TS No. 01/2017 (new) and TS No. 04/2013 (old) and TA No. 06/2022. 10. List accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant