Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010141602025 2025:GAU-AS:9348 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/94/2025 MEHERJAN BEWA AND 3 ORS W/O LATE BABOR ALI, R/O VILL- KUKRARPAR, P.S.- FULBARI, DIST- WEST GARO HILLS, MEGHALAYA 2: KULSUM BEWA W/O LATE KUDDUS ALI R/O VILL- BALUGHAT (RAVATARI) P.O.- RAVATARI P.S.- SOUTH SALMARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783127 3: FALANI BIBI W/O ANOWAR ALI R/O VILL- BALUGHAT (RAVATARI) P.O.- RAVATARI P.S.- SOUTH SALMARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783127 4: MOYNAL HOQUE S/O LATE GUNDA BEPARI R/O VILL- BALUGHAT (RAVATARI) P.O.- RAVATARI P.S.- SOUTH SALMARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78312 Page No.# 2/7 VERSUS SHAHJAHAN ALI S/O LATE AKBAR ALI, R/O VILL- BALUGHAT (RAVATARI), P.O.- RAVATARI, P.S.- SOUTH SALMARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783127 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR A H AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 21.07.2025 Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Section 115 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 05.03.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri (executing court hereinafter) in Misc. (J) Execution Case No. 06/2018, arising out of Title Execution Case No. 24/2015 and Title Suit No. 42/2011. 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 05.03.2025, the learned executing court had dismissed the petition filed by the present petitioners, under Section 47 of the CPC. 4. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were the defendants in the Title Suit No. 42/2011 and in the said title suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein had prayed for declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule ‘B’ land; delivery of khas possession; declaration for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- per year being the loss and damage; and permanent injunction. The present petitioners had contested the suit by filing Page No.# 3/7 written statement and thereafter, taking evidence, adduced by both the parties and after hearing, the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri (trial court hereinafter) had decreed the suit without cost, by declaring right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein in Schedule ‘B’ land within the Schedule ‘A’ land and also declared that plaintiff/respondent herein, entitled to decree for khas possession of Schedule ‘B’ land. 4.1. It is the further submission of Mr. Mazumdar that the petitioners herein did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decree. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent herein had instituted one title execution case, being Title Execution Case No. 24/2015, wherein the decree in Title Suit No. 42/2011 was executed and khas possession of the decretal land was handed over to the plaintiff/respondent herein. After execution of the decree, the defendants/petitioners herein, had filed a petition, before the learned executing court, under Section 47 of the CPC, upon which a Misc. (J) Execution Case No. 06/2018 was registered, on the ground that the said execution is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the decree and that the Rectification Deed No. 1455/1995 and the land of deed of Abandon, vide Deed No. 97/2006 are not same and one identical with the land of either Schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’; the Schedule ‘B’ land as per the plaint and decree not covered by Dag No. 1098 (new), but so far as mentioned in writ Dag No. 1098 is mentioned, which is beyond the decree; and as per the revenue record, in Patta No. 176 (new) there is no land covered by dag number either 808/951 as old or 1098 as new dag and as such, the decree so passed in Title Suit No. 42/2011 is vague and not executable. 4.2. Mr. Mazumdar further submits that the learned executing court without considering the aforesaid aspect and also having not considered the fact that there was a mistake in patta number of Schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ land, dismissed the Page No.# 4/7 application filed by the defendants/petitioners herein and thereby caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. Under such circumstances, Mr. Mazumdar has contended to allow this petition. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the impugned order dated 05.03.2025, passed by the learned executing court. 6. It appears that the learned executing court had observed that looking into the evidence there appears a mistake in the patta number of Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ land and it does not in any manner effect the decision of the trial court as the suit was decreed in favour of the opposite party/respondent herein. Thereafter, discussing several decisions of this court and of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Mollah vs. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Societies Limited, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 421; Sukhendu Bikash Laskhar vs. Narayan Chandra Bhowmik, reported in (2012) 6 GLR 147; Kaloram Patar and Others vs. Ghanahira and Others, reported in (2013) 6 GLR 335; and also the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Bela Devi vs. Bon Behary Roy, reported in AIR 1952 Cal. 86, held that there is no infirmity with the acts of the Bailiff in giving possession to the opposite party/respondent herein and even though the patta number of the land was not correct in the precept, but the Bailiff was accompanied with two Lat Mandals, who had assisted in the identification of the land as per the land record and they had correctly identified the same. 6.1. Thereafter, it had arrived at the conclusion that the land, which the opposite party/respondent herein was given of in pursuance to the writ of Page No.# 5/7 possession, is the decretal land of Title Suit No. 42/2011. 7. It is to be noted here that a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Abdul Mannan Mazumdar vs. Alauddin Laskar, reported in (2014) 1 GLR 514, categorically observed taking into account the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC that if the plaintiff's claims title in respect to specific immovable property, it should be suitably identified either by boundaries or by revenue index i.e. dag numbers and patta numbers. In paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment, it was held that if there is any dispute with regard to the identity of a land from the stand point of dag numbers and patta numbers with that of the boundaries, the boundaries shall prevail over the revenue index and patta number. Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the said judgment are quoted herein under:- "7. Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure only requires that if plaintiff's claim title in respect of specific immovable property, it should be suitably identified either by boundaries or by revenue index, i.e. dags and pattas. 8. The law is settled by now that if there is any dispute with regard to identify of a land from the stand point of dag Nos. and patta Nos. with that of the boundaries, the boundaries shall prevail over the revenue index and patta No. Here, in this case, sale deed dated 14.9.1995 specifically mentioned the four boundaries of the land in question. I have compared the land with the plaint and found the boundaries of Ext. 4 and the land in schedule to the plaint are identical and there is no variation whatsoever. The findings of the learned Courts below particularly trial Court, that there is no mention about delivery of possession in Ext. 4, also appears to be perverse inasmuch as, there is Page No.# 6/7 specific recital in Ext. 4 that the same land is handed over to the vendee within the specific boundary mentioned in the deed. This finding of the Courts below as to variance of boundaries of schedule and that of the plaint along with observation as to the absence of the recital that possession was handed over to the vendee, therefore, are clearly perverse which gave rise to substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this view of the matter, the substantial question No.1 is decided in favour of the appellant. As observed above, a suit for declaration of title along with recovery of possession with a prayer for partition cannot be failed without joinder of co- pattadars. There is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner which is executed duly and validly in respect to the suit land. Having regard to the observations made above, the second substantial question of law is also liable to be decided in favour of the appellant /plaintiff." 7.1. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the petitioners that there is any discrepancy in respect of the boundaries of the decretal land. There is descrepency in respect of patta number only in respect of Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ land. 8. Thus, having examined the impugned order, in the light of the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is of the view that though, admittedly, there is discrepancy in the patta number of the Schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ land, the same does not have any effect upon the decision of the learned trial Court. And notwithstanding the discrepancy in the patta number the land was Page No.# 7/7 identifiable and the Bailiff had given possession of the decretal land to the plaintiff/opposite party/respondent herein having been identified the same by two Lat Mandals. Since the decretal land is identifiable and already given possession to the plaintiff/respondent herein, the impugned order so passed by the learned executing Court to the considered opinion of this Court, suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this court. 9. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant