Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010018142017 2026:GAU-AS:13202 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/114/2017 GOPAL CHANDRA DEBNATH S/O LATE PURNA CH. DEBNATH, R/O VILL. DHUALIA, P.O. DHUALIA, P.S. PATHARKANDI, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN 788724 VERSUS ATUL SABDAKAR and 3 ORS S/O LATE SAMAI SABDAKAR, R/O DHUALIA PART-IV, P.O. DHUALIABAZAR, P.S. PATHARKANDI and DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN 788724 2:CIRCLE OFFICER PATHARKANDI P.O. and P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST. KARIMGANJ 3:SETTLEMENT OFFICER KARIMGANJ P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ PIN 788710 4:STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ Page No.# 2/16 - B e f o r e- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocates for the appellant : Mr. S. K. Ghosh Advocate for the respondents : Mr. I. A. Talukdar, respondent No. 1. Ms. D. D. Barman, Additional Senior Government Advocate, respondent Nos. 2-4. Date of which Judgment is reserved : 16.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 10.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the Judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Ms. D. D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2-4. 2. This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.09.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, in Title Appeal No. 17/2016, whereby, the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj (hereinafter, ‘First Appellate Court’), has reversed the Page No.# 3/16 Judgment and Decree, dated 31.05.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’), in Title Suit No. 239/2012. 3. For the sake of convenience and also to avoid confusion, the parties herein will be referred to by their original status in the Title Suit. Background facts:- 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under - “The appellant herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 239/2012, for (a) a decree of declaration that he is the owner of the suit land by right of inheritance and having a right, title, interest and possession thereon; (b) a declaration that the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land; (c) a declaration that the mutation of the suit land in the name of defendant No. 5 is illegal, arbitrary, void, collusive, fraudulent and fabricated, and the same is liable to be cancelled, by deleting the name of the defendant No. 5 from the revenue record in respect of the suit land, and for mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the revenue record, in respect of the suit land; (d) permanent injunction, restraining the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 from transferring the land to some other person in the form of sale, lease, gift or in any other form and in any other manner, and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and also from mutating the Page No.# 4/16 name in the suit land, in respect of creation of sale deed during the pendency of the suit, by the defendant Nos. 5 & 6; and (e) the cost of the suit. The plaintiff’s case is that a plot of land, measuring 2 Bighas, covered by Dag No. 274, situated in Parganah Pratapgarh, Mauza-Dhualia Part III (Hill), was originally owned by one Late Romoni Mohan Bhattacharjee and one Manoranjan Bhattacharjee, to whom the Government had allotted the said plot of land. Following the death of Late Romoni Mohan Bhattacharjee, Smt. Minoti Rani Bhattacharjee, who is the daughter and legal heir of Late Romoni Mohan Bhattacharjee; acquired right over the suit land and sold share of the land of Late Romoni Mohan Bhattacharjee to Sumoti Bala Devi, mother of the plaintiff, vide registered Purchase Deed No. 3576, dated 26.09.1966. And prior to that, Monoranjan Bhattacharjee, while maintaining his right, title and interest over a portion of the suit land, sold the same along with the other lands, in the favour of Purno Chandra Debnath, father of the plaintiff, vide registered Deed No. 1515, dated 20.04.1964. And after the death of Purno Chandra Debnath and Sumoti Bala Devi, the plaintiff, being their son, acquired the right, title and interest over the said plot of land by virtue of inheritance and has been enjoying the land, measuring 15 Bighas, including the suit land, and has been maintaining his right, title, interest and possession thereon. The land of the predecessor of the plaintiff was covered under Dag Nos. 274, 275, 276, 277 and 632, and at the time of settlement operation and field attestation, the Revenue Department found absolute possession of the plaintiff and accordingly, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, had mutated the name of plaintiff in the revenue records, vide Patta No. 5060/46, measuring an area of 10 Bighas Page No.# 5/16 and odds. They also mutated the name of plaintiff, pertaining to an area of 3 Bighas of land, in the Touzi records of the Government. The remaining land is suit schedule land, measuring an area of 2 Bighas, under Dag No. 274, also owned and possessed by the predecessors of the plaintiff and subsequently, the plaintiff is maintaining his right, title and interest over it. However, even after the defendant Nos. 1-4 had found his absolute possession over the suit land, they mutated the name of one Biraja Sabdakar, (mother of Defendant No. 6, who was made Defendant No. 5 in this suit; but after her death, vide order dated 26.05.2015, her name was struck off from the plaint) in the revenue records, in respect of the suit land arbitrarily; ignoring the fact that the suit land is part and parcel of the purchased deed. The plaintiff came to know about the aforesaid fact on 12.09.2011, when the plaintiff got an information slip from the defendants, informing him that the suit land has not been mutated in his name. Thereafter, on 13.08.2012, plaintiff filed a petition before the defendant No. 1, for mutating his name in revenue records in respect of the suit land, vide document No. 3030. In pursuance of the said petition, the Circle Officer, Patherkandi, directed ‘Amin’ for enquiry and report. But, in the meanwhile, the defendant No. 6 and his mother tried to sale the suit land and therefore, the plaintiff had instituted the suit, seeking the reliefs as aforesaid. The defendants had filed their affidavit-in-opposition, denying the statements and averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The Defendant Nos. 1-4 had denied that Smt. Minoti Rani Bhattacharjee sold the suit land to Sumoti Bala Devi, mother of the plaintiff, vide registered purchase Deed No. 3576, dated 26.09.1966. They also denied that said Monoranjan Bhattacharjee, Page No.# 6/16 while maintaining his right, title and interest over a portion of the suit land, sold the same along with the other lands, in the favour of Purno Chandra Debnath, father of the plaintiff, vide registered Deed No. 1515, dated 20.04.1964. According to the defendant Nos. 5 and 6, Deed Nos. 3576 and 1515, are collusive deeds and possession of the land was never handed over on the basis of those deeds to the predecessor of the plaintiff. They have denied that during the settlement survey, authorities found absolute possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. As per the defendant Nos. 5 and 6, the suit land is ‘Mourashi land’ and they have been enjoying the right, title and interest over it since the time of predecessors of Biraja Sabdakar. It is their further contention that the name of defendant No.5 was rightly mutated over the suit land and that the suit is bad for defect of the parties, as all the vendors of the Purchase Deed Nos. 3576 and 1515, were the necessary parties to this suit and under such circumstances, they have contended to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. Upon the aforementioned pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is bad by limitation? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner? 4. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed? Page No.# 7/16 Thereafter, the learned Trial Court had examined 3 (three) witnesses of the plaintiff and one witness of the defendant’s side. And after considering the evidences, so adduced and the documents, so exhibited and also after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Trial Court has decided the Issue No. 1 in affirmative, Issue No. 2 in negative, Issue No. 3 in affirmative, Issue No. 4 in affirmative and Issue No. 5 in affirmative and thereafter, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide Judgment and Decree, dated 25.05.2016. Then being aggrieved, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 17/2016, before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court has formulated the following points for determination 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner? 2. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 3. Whether mutation of the suit land in the name of the defendant No. 5 is illegal and void? Thereafter, the learned Appellate Court has decided the Point No. 1 in affirmative, Point No. 2 in affirmative and Point No. 3 in negative, and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Then being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, upon which, this Court, while admitting the appeal, has formulated the following substantial questions of law 1. Whether the learned lower court erred in law in reversing the judgment of the learned trial court while plaintiff having proved his title by Ext. 1 & 2 Page No.# 8/16 (registered sale deeds) executed in the year 1964 and 1966 respectively by the original owner? 2. Whether the learned lower court erred in law in misconstruing the provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act by overlooking the provision of Article 65 of the Limitation Act?” Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff/appellant has proved his right, title and interest over the suit land, by exhibiting the registered Sale Deed No. 3576, dated 26.09.1966, and Sale Deed No. 1515, dated 20.04.1964, being Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2 respectively; by the original owner and the defendants have not challenged the aforementioned deeds. 5.1 Mr. Ghosh also submits that though the defendants had taken a plea in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the written statement that the suit land, covering Dag No. 274, is Mourashi land, which the defendants had inherited; yet, they could not establish the source of their right, title and interest. He further submits that mere entering of the name in the revenue record is not sufficient to prove their right, title and interest. 5.2 Mr. Ghosh has also pointed out that while the learned Trial Court, had decided the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiff, the learned First Appellate Court decided the issue in negative. He further pointed it out that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2012, and while the plaintiff came to know about the mutation of the land in the name of the respondent No. 5 on 12.09.2011; in view of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of Page No.# 9/16 limitation is 3 (three) years and as such, the suit was instituted within the stipulated period of 3 (three) years from the date of coming to know about the mutation, on 12.09.2011; when the plaintiff got the information slip from the defendant No. 1, informing him that the suit land has not been mutated in his name previously. 5.3. Mr. Ghosh further pointed it out that the learned First Appellate Court had held that the plaintiff came to know about non-mutation of his name, when he obtained the periodic Khiraj Patta, on 04.11.2008, and therefore, according to the learned First Appellate Court, his right to sue also accrued on that day. And in arriving at such a finding, the learned First Appellate Court has relied upon the Exhibit No. 3, the Final Khiraj Patta, which was issued on 04.11.2008, and this finding, according to Mr. Ghosh is incorrect in view of the fact that he came to know about the same on 12.09.2011, when the information slip was issued to him by the respondent No.1. 5.4. Further contention of Mr. Ghosh is that the defendants have not challenged the Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2, i.e., the registered sale deeds; on the strength of which, the plaintiff has proved his case, and that the finding, so recorded by the learned First Appellate court is erroneous and therefore, he has contended to interfere with the same. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents: 6. Per contra, Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the defendant/respondent No. 5 was a refugee and the Refugee Registration Certificate has been exhibited in this case during trial and also, the Government has allotted a land in favour of the respondent No. 5, but, the said Page No.# 10/16 allotment letter has not been produced and exhibited. 6.1. Mr. Talukdar further submits that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly arrived at the finding in respect of the point of limitation and also arrived at the finding that the Government allotted land cannot be sold out to the predecessor of the plaintiff by the erstwhile owner to whom the land in question was allotted. He also submits that the period of limitation here is three years, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act; and the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. 6.2. Mr. Talukdar has pointed it out that a periodic Khiraj Patta, which is exhibited as Exhibit-3; was issued in favour of the defendant No. 5, and in paragraph No. 10 of the written statement, the same has clearly been stated. He further submits that there is no infirmity or perversity in the finding, so recorded by the learned First Appellate Court and the substantial questions of law, as formulated by this Court, are not at all involved in this appeal, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the appeal. 7. In reply to the submission of Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, submits that the defendants have not challenged the sale deeds, being Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2; on the strength of which, the plaintiff has been claiming his right, title and interest over the suit land and therefore, he has contended to allow this appeal, by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 8. Ms. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 - 4, also supports the impugned Judgment and Decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court and submits that the same suffers Page No.# 11/16 from no illegality or perversity, requiring any interference of this Court and therefore, she has contended to dismiss this appeal. Discussion and analysis: - 9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein; also gone though the substantial questions of law, so formulated by this Court; and also gone through the impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 23.09.2016, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, in Title Appeal No. 17/2016. 10. It is to be noted here that the learned Trial Court, in the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.05.2016, while dealing with the Issue No. 4, had arrived at a clear finding that the plaintiff had proved the Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, the registered sale deeds; on the strength of which, his ‘predecessor in interest’ had purchased the suit land, and also examined the extra deed writer of the Silchar, Sub Registrar Office, as PW-3, who had produced the original volume book and verified the contents of the Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. 10.1. Further, it had held that the plaintiff has also proved his possession over the suit land by examining the PW-2, and has further held that the defendant has produced only the Exhibit No. 3, i.e., the Periodic Khiraj Patta, issued in the name of Biraja Sabdakar; and as per that Patta, her name was mutated in Dag Nos. 217, 228 and the suit Dag No. 274. 10.2. The learned Trial Court also held that though the defendant No. 6, in his evidence, stated that the land is under his possession and his mother’s name has been rightly mutated over the suit land, bearing Dag No. 274; yet, he was Page No.# 12/16 unable to answer as to how his mother got the title over the suit land. And on the basis of the documents exhibited by him, i.e. the Refugee Registration Certificate and Citizenship Certificate, he claimed that Government had allotted the land bearing Dag No. 274, to him and issued Periodic Khiraj Patta. 10.3. Thereafter, relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Narasamma and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in 2009 (2) ICC 669 (SC), had arrived at a finding that mere recording of name of the defendant No. 5 in the revenue record, does not take away the title of the plaintiff over the suit land, who, on the basis of a registered sale deed, had proved that the suit land was purchased by his predecessor, and the defendant No. 1 has not shown any document to prove the acquisition of suit land by the Government, so as to allot the same to said Biraja Sabdakar, defendant No. 3. 10.4. Thus, the finding of the learned Trial Court appears to be based upon the evidence and documents exhibited by the plaintiff, and also the finding so recorded, gains sustenance from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narasamma and Ors. (Supra). 11. On the other hand, the learned First Appellate Court had held that the plaintiff is banking upon Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2 in support of his claim, which, according to the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable; more so, when the plaintiff has failed to submit the source of title, i.e., the Allotment Certificate of the allottee. 11.1. The learned First Appellate Court has also arrived at a finding that the allotment of land and settlement of land are two different things, and as regards the allotment, it is a settled proposition of law that the Government allots land Page No.# 13/16 to the landless poor persons temporarily for specific purpose, i.e., for cultivation and for construction of the house of the allottee, and it is limited only to the allottee during his lifetime, subject to payment of revenue/rent at regular intervals. Further, allotment is made on a condition that the allottee cannot sale the land or cannot get it cultivated by others and the allotted land cannot be inherited by legal heirs of the allottee, nor can it be considered as a document of title; and thereafter, the learned First Appellate Court has rejected the case of the plaintiff. 12. The finding so arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court, while examined in the light of the given facts and circumstances on the record and also in light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties; as because, the Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2 are the registered sale deeds, duly proved by the PW-1, 2 and 3, and the defendants have neither challenged the said deeds, nor made any prayer by way of counter-claim to cancel the aforementioned deeds, which were executed in the years 1964 and 1966. And in that view of the matter, this Court is unable to agree with the finding of the learned First Appellate Court. 13. And as such, the first substantial question of law flows out of the impugned Judgment and Decree, and the same is answered in affirmative, that the learned First Appellate Court erred in law in reversing the Judgment of the learned Trial Court. 14. Moving forward to the substantial question of law No. 2, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has held that the suit is filed well within the period of limitation, in view of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, while deciding the Issue No. 2 in the Title Suit. Page No.# 14/16 14.1. But, the learned First Appellate Court has held that the suit is barred by limitation, as the same was filed on 27.08.2012, while the plaintiff had the knowledge about infringement of his alleged right on the day, when he obtained Periodic Khiraj Patta, i.e., on 04.11.2008. And having filed the suit on 27.08.2012, while his right to sue accrues on 04.11.2008; the suit, having been instituted after 3 years 3 months, is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. 14.2. However, it is the categorical contention of the plaintiff that he came to know about mutation of the name of the respondent No. 5, only on 12.09.2011, when he got the information slip from the defendant No. 1, informing him that the suit land had not been mutated in his name previously and he had no knowledge about the said mutation. 14.3. Though, the learned First Appellate Court had held that the right to sue accrues on 04.11.2008, when the period Khiraj Patta was obtained by the plaintiff; yet, in fact the plaintiff came to know about the mutation of the name of the defendant No. 5, only on 12.09.2011. 14.4. However, it appears that the plaintiff, in no uncertain terms, stated in the plaint that the cause of action of the suit arose on 12.09.2011, when he got the information slip from the defendant No.1. And the averment made by the plaintiff in his plaint, in respect of arising of cause of action on 12.09.2011, had not been specifically denied by the defendants in their written statement, 14.5. Having not been traversed by the defendants in their written statement, the said fact is deemed to have been admitted by them, in view of the doctrine of non-traversal. But, this aspect eschewed consideration of the learned First Appellate Court and it arrived at the finding that from the date of issuance of Page No.# 15/16 Exhibit-3, on 04.11.2008, which indicates mutation of the name of the plaintiff over a plot of land measuring 10 Bighas 2 Kathas 1 Chatak, against Dag Nos. 275, 276 and 277; the plaintiff had knowledge of the infringement of his alleged right. But, from a careful perusal of the paragraph No. 6 of the plaint it appears that when the plaintiff got the information slip from the defendant No. 1, in respect of non mutation of the suit land in the revenue record, i.e., on 12.09.2011, and then he had filed an application before the defendant No. 1 on 13.08.2012, for mutating his name in the revenue record, in respect of the suit land. 15. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it appears that the learned First Appellate Court erred in law in construing the period of limitation, in respect of Article 58 of the Limitation Act. And since the plaintiff has not prayed for recovery of possession of the suit land, who all along has claimed to have possession over the suit land, covering Dag No. 274; this Court is of the view that the applicable Article is ‘Article 58’ of the Limitation Act, and not ‘Article 65’ of the Limitation Act. 16. In that view of the matter, substantial question of law No. 2, partly flows out of the impugned Judgment and Decree, and the same has to be answered in negative, and accordingly, stands answered. Conclusion: - 17. In the result, this Court finds sufficient merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 23.09.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, in Title Appeal No. 17/2016, stands set aside and quashed. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.05.2016, so passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj, Page No.# 16/16 in Title Suit No. 239/2012, stands restored. 18. Registry shall, forthwith, return the records of the learned Courts below, with a copy of this Judgment and Order. 19. In terms of the above, this Regular Second Appeal stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant