Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010072662025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/162/2025 ON THE DEATTH OF PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY HIS LEGAL HEIRS SUBHADRA CHAKRABORTY AND ORS. W/O. LT. PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY 1.2: SUKLA CHAKRABORTY D/O. LT. PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY 1.3: MITHAN CHAKRABORTY S/O. LT. PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY 1.4: LITAN CHAKRABORTY S/O. LT. PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY 1.5: MAMTA CHAKRABORTY D/O. LT. PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY 2: SANDHYA RANI CHAKRABORTY D/O. LT. PAZRINDRA CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY W/O. LT. BADAL CHAKRABORTY 3: BALAI CHAKRABORTY S/O. LT. PARESH CHAKRABORTY 4: PANNA CHAKRABORTY S/O. LT. PARESH CHAKRABORTY 5: MANNA CHAKRABORTY S/O. LT. PARESH CHAKRABORTY 6: SUMATI CHAKRABORTY D/O. LT. PARESH CHAKRABORTY 7: MAHAMAYA PURUKAYASTHA D/O. LT. BINDU BHASINI PURUKAYASTHA Page No.# 2/5 ALL ARE R/O. STATION ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN P/O. P/S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM VERSUS KARIMGANJ BANAMALI STATION ROAD JAME MOSQUE AND ORS. P/O., P/S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM. REP. BY ITS MUTWALI, ABDUL NOOR, S/O. LT. ABDUL MATIN, RESIDING AT INDIRA COLONY, WARD NO. 26, KARIMGANJ TOWN, P/O., P/S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ 2:ABDUL AZIZ S/O. LT. KARI RODWAN AHMED 3:ABDUL KHALIQUE S/O. LT. KARI RODWAN AHMED BOTH ARE OF UNITED BROTHERS STATION ROAD KARIMGANJ P/O. P/S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ 4:SHYAMAL PAUL @ CHUTAN PAUL S/O. LT. HRISHIKESH PAUL 5:MAHTAB UDDIN S/O. LT. MUJOMMIL HAQUE 6.1:ON THE DEATH OF SHILA RANI DEB ROY HER LEGAL HEIRS ARE RATNA DEB ROY S/O. LT. SHILA RANI DEB ROY 6.2:RAJU DEB ROY S/O. LT. SHILA RANI DEB ROY 6.3:RAMU DEB ROY S/O. LT. SHILA RANI DEB ROY AND LT. RASHBEHARI DEB ROY ALL ARE C/O. LAKHI BAKERY STATION ROAD KARIMGANJ P/O. P/S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ 7:SHANKAR CHAKRABORTY S/O. LT. PARESH CHAKRABORTY Page No.# 3/5 RESIDING AT AMBASHA TRIPURA. 8.1:ON THE DEATH OF SHILA RANI DEB ROY HER LEGAL HEIRS ARE DEBJANI CHAKRABORTY W/O. LT. GREEBENDU CHAKRABORTY @ BULU 8.2:DISHA CHAKRABORTY D/O. LT. GREEBENDU CHAKRABORTY @ BULU BOTH ARE RESIDENT AT INDIRA COLONY WARD NO. 26 KARIMGANJ TOWN P/O. P/S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ 9:ABDUL KHALIQUE S/O. LT. HAJI MAHMOD ALI C/O. HAJI SAHEBER HOTEL STATION ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN P/O. P/S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 10:PROVA CHAKRABORTY W/O. RABINDRA CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY C/O. RANJAN CHAKRABORTY R/O. AT ARAI MANI CHECK POST SEVAK ROAD SILIGURI DIST. DARJEELIN Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. B SARKAR, MR. T ROY Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15.12.2025 1. Heard Ms. B. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Page No.# 4/5 Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellants impugning the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sribhumi, in Title Appeal No. 17/2019 whereby the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj, in Title Suit No. 126/2005 was affirmed. In the memo of appeal, following substantial question of law has been formulated by the appellants:- “1. Substantial question of law arises whether Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has Jurisdiction to decide the dispute of Mosque property which was filed by Karimganj Banomali Station Road Jama Mosque represented by its Mutwali Abdul Noor being T.S. No.211/2001 before the Learned Trial Court and the Learned Trial passed ex-parte decree on 30/07/2003 and connected T.Ex. No.8/2005 was also pending before the Executing Court i,e Munsiff No.1, Karimganj since according to the provision of Sec.85 of the waqf Act. 1995 Civil Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain suits or legal proceeding related to waqf property and the same is required to be determined by the Waqf Board under the Act” 2. Substantial question of law arises Mosque being a place used for religious purposes and as per section 3(r) of the Waqf Act 1995 Mosque fall under the definition of waqf property”. 3. On bare perusal of the substantial question of law formulated by the appellants, it appears that same does not relates to Title Appeal No. 17/2019 whose judgment and decree has been impugned in this appeal rather it relates to Title Suit No. 211/2001. 4. Moreover, the question formulated in the memo of appeal is a question of fact and not a question of law pertaining to the judgment which has been impugned in this appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that Page No.# 5/5 the appellants has failed to comply with the requirement of Section 100(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in precisely stated the substantial question of law involved in this appeal and accordingly this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for aforesaid reasons. JUDGE Comparing Assistant