Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010028282025 2025:GAU-AS:3735 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/48/2025 MAKRAM ALI S/O LATE JOYNAL BEPARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SADHUBHASA, P.O.- BAGARIBARI, P.S.-GAURIPUR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783349 VERSUS MUSSTT JORJINA BEGUM AND ORS. W/O MOSARAB HUSSAIN, VILLAGE- TIAMARI PART II, P.O./P.S.- GAURIPUR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783349 2:ON THE DEATH OF NIRMAL CHOUDHURY HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY 2.1:MUKIM CHOUDHURY D/O LATE NIRMAL CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR P.S.-GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 2.2:SUMKI CHOUDHURY D/O LATE NIRMAL CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR P.S.-GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 Page No.# 2/11 2.3:SANJAY CHOUDHURY S/O LATE NIRMAL CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR P.S.-GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 2.4:SURWAN CHOUDHURY S/O LATE NIRMAL CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR P.S.-GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 3:BIRBAL CHOUDHURY S/O LATE SHOHAN CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR P.S.-GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 4:KISHORY CHOUDHURY S/O LATE BHIM CHOUDHURY R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR P.S.-GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 5:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER DHUBRI CIRCLE DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 6:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR DHUBRI 7:ON THE DEATH OF MADAN LAL BIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS Page No.# 3/11 NAMELY 7.1:BASANT BIN S/O LATE MADAN LAL BIN R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR TOWN GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 7.2:BHOLA BIN S/O LATE MADAN LAL BIN R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR TOWN GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 7.3:SUSHMA BIN D/O LATE MADAN LAL BIN R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR TOWN GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 7.4:JASWANT BIN D/O LATE MADAN LAL BIN R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR TOWN GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783331 7.5:SONU BIN S/O LATE MADAN LAL BIN R/O WARD NO. 4 GAURIPUR TOWN GAURPUR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 Page No.# 4/11 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. F. U. Borbhuiyan, Advocate Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. P. K. Kalita, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. H. Zaman, Advocate Ms. K. Phukan, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of Judgment : 27.03.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. F. U. Borbhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Kalita, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. H. Zaman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Dhubri in Misc.(J) Case No.92/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.29/2015 whereby the application seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected. 3. This Court has duly perused the amendment application whereby it is mentioned that while seeking the reliefs in the suit, due to oversight, the relief pertaining to seeking declaration that Page No.# 5/11 the registered Sale Deed No.1572 dated 01.10.2012 executed before Senior Sub-Registrar Office at Dhubri is forged and illegal and liable to be cancelled was omitted. This Court has also taken note of the written objection filed by the defendant No.4 in the said proceedings stating inter-alia that the amendment ought not to be allowed taking into account that the amendment sought for is time barred. It was also mentioned that the amendment which has been sought for would change the nature and character of the suit. It was averred in the written objection that the plaintiff was not at all diligent and was playing dilatory tactics for prolonging the litigation, causing harassment and financial loss to the defendants. 4. This Court has also perused the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the amendment application on the ground that the application was filled belatedly and the defendants had acquired right by bar of limitation, and as such, if such amendment is allowed, it would affect the rights of the defendants. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the plaint in Title Suit No.29/2015. This Court finds it relevant to take note of paragraph Nos.12, 13 14 & 15 of the said plaint which is reproduced herein under:- Page No.# 6/11 “12. That, on getting information of the illegal activities of the defendants, the plaintiff came from his working place of Bongaigaon and asked the defendants on 9/5/2013 as to why his land is possessing then the defendant expressed that the defendant no.4 purchase the land from Madan Lal Bin in respect of plaintiff's suit land and on enquiry found that the defendant no.4 in conspiracy with other defendants by presenting false person before the Sub- Registrar got a forged sale deed shown to be executed in favour of defendant no.4 and on the basis of forged and illegal deed the A.S.O., Dhubri on being influenced by the other defendants illegally mutated the land in schedule below in the name of defendant no.4. 13. That, it is stated that the plaintiff filed a criminal case against the defendants and others for cheating and making forged document and the said case was registered as Gauripur P.S. Case No. 187/2013 U/Sec. 147/148/149/120(B)/420/406/468/323/452/506/36 .P.C. and the said case is under investigation. 14. That, it is stated that Madan Lal Bin, the proforma defendant already sold out the schedule land 1 katha to the plaintiff by executing Regd. Sale Deed in 2003 and delivered its possession to him so the subsequent sale deed bearing No. 1572 in favour of defendant no.4 in respect of plaintiff’s 1 katha land shown in schedule B is illegal and the said defendant cannot acquire right, title, over the suit land by virtue of the sale deed shown to be executed in her favour. 15. That, on the basis of illegal and forged sale deed the defendant Page No.# 7/11 no.4 by influencing the A.S.O., Dhubri illegally mutated the land in her name in connection with mutation case No. DM(PS) No.668/2012.” 6. From a perusal of the above contents of the plaint, it would be seen that there are specific pleadings being made in respect to the allegation that the Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.1572 was a forged document and the said Deed of Sale was executed by an imposter. However, there was a requirement to seek a relief as regards declaration that the said Deed of Sale was forged and illegal and liable to be cancelled which was not done at the time of filing of the suit. 7. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that it is a settled principle of law that the entire plaint has to be read as a whole and not merely the relief portion. Therefore, from a perusal of the contents of the plaint, it appears that there are pleadings to the effect about the Deed of Sale being forged and illegal, and accordingly, liable to be cancelled. 8. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of the City of Bangalore vs. M. Papaiah & Another, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 612. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “4. So far the scope of the suit is concerned, a perusal of the plaint Page No.# 8/11 clearly indicates that the foundation of the claim of the plaintiffs is the title which they have pleaded in express terms in para 2 of the plaint. It has been stated that after cancelling the acquisition of the suit property for a burial ground the land was transferred to Guttahalli Hanumaiah under G.O. No. 3540 dated 10-6-1929 on payment of upset price. In paras 3 and 5 the plaintiffs have reiterated that the first plaintiff was the owner-in-possession. It is well established that for deciding the nature of a suit the entire plaint has to be read and not merely the relief portion, and the plaint in the present case does not leave any manner of doubt that the suit has been filed for establishing the title of the plaintiffs and on that basis getting an injunction against the appellant Corporation. The court fee payable on the plaint has also to be assessed accordingly. It follows that the appellant’s objection that the suit is not maintainable has to be rejected. The Additional Civil Judge, who heard the appeal from the judgment of the trial court, examined the question of plaintiffs’ title and rejected their case. The question of possession was also separately taken up, and it was found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession until 24- 8-1973 when they allege that the appellant Corporation trespassed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. 5. In reversing the decision of the first appellate court the High Court committed several serious errors of law. The High Court appears to have been confused on the question whether the issue of title to the disputed property was involved in the suit or not. The judgment shows that the High Court has made several inconsistent Page No.# 9/11 observations. By way of illustration, the following passage at page 13 of the paper book (of this Court) may be seen: “This Court must accept this argument in view of the circumstances that there was no issue involving the title. The title has been satisfactorily established by the appellants and the respondent has failed to establish its title. Therefore, the first appellate court is wholly wrong in raising issues which did not arise in the case and reaching the conclusion that the suit was bad since the appellants did not seek the relief of declaration of title and possession.” We do agree that the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the relief of declaration of title and possession has not been specifically mentioned in the plaint. But the observations on the question whether the issue of title is involved in the suit or not are clearly discrepant. In some other part of the judgment the High Court has mentioned a portion of the relevant evidence on the question of title and possession and made adverse comments against the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court without giving any valid reason therefore. So far the revenue records are concerned, the appellate court considered the same and held that they did not support the plaint. The High Court has reversed the finding saying that the interpretation of the first appellate court was erroneous. It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law. These errors have seriously vitiated the impugned Page No.# 10/11 judgment of the High Court which must be set aside.” 9. Taking into account the above exposition of law as settled by the Supreme Court, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the plaint if read as a whole would show that there is already a challenge to the registered Sale Deed No.1572 dated 01.10.2012 to be forged, illegal and accordingly liable to be cancelled. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court ought to have therefore allowed the said amendment in so far as only allowing the insertion of prayer d (i) as sought for in the application seeking amendment. 10. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the plaintiff has been not diligent and resultantly in view of the amendment so made at the late stage, it would result in further delay of the suit. Consequently, it is the opinion of this Court that some costs has to be imposed. 11. Accordingly, this Court interferes with the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Dhubri in Misc.(J) Case No.92/2024 and allows the application seeking amendment of the plaint being Misc.(J) Case No.92/2024 only to the extent of insertion of prayer d (i) to the plaint. Page No.# 11/11 12. This Court further imposes a costs of Rs,25,000/- upon the plaintiff which shall be a condition for the purpose of allowing the amendment of the plaint to the extent directed above. 13. It is seen that this Court vide an order dated 19.02.2025 had stayed the further proceedings of Title Suit No.29/2015 pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Dhubri till the next date. The said stay order stands vacated and the parties herein who are duly represented are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 11.04.2025. On the said date, the amended plaint only to the extent allowed above has to be filed by the plaintiff/petitioner along with the cost of Rs.25,000/-. 14. It is observed that if the plaint is not filed on the date so fixed herein above, the consequences as mandated under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 shall ensure. 15. This Court further observes that the defendants would be at liberty to file an application before the learned Trial Court for release of the amount of Rs.25,000/- and the learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate order(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant