Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010075102026 2026:GAU-AS:6868 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/154/2026 LEARNERS EDUCATION TRAUST AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI VARGHESE PANJIAKARAN 2: VARGHESE PANJIKARAN S/O LATE P.L. ANTONY P/R/O SHANTI NAGAR RUPAI SIDING P.O. AND P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786153 P/R/A PANJIKARAN HOUSE LAKHIDI P.O.- OTTAPALAM VIA PALAKKAD DIST- KERALA PIN-679301 3: SMT. ALICE VARGHESE PANJIKARAN W/O SRI VARGHESE PANJIKARAN P/R/O SHANTI NAGAR RUPAI SIDING P.O. AND P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786153 P/R/A PANJIKARAN HOUSE LAKHIDI P.O.- OTTAPALAM VIA PALAKKAD DIST- KERALA PIN-67930 VERSUS Page No.# 2/8 DR. SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND 2 ORS. S/O SRI DHARAM NATH PRASAD, R/O BORHAPJAN, P.O.- BORHAPJAN, P.S.- DOOMDOOMA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2:JOSEPH PANJIKARAN ANTONY S/O LATE P.L. ANTONY P/R/O SHANTI NAGAR RUPAI SIDING P.O. AND P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM P/R/A JYOTI SCHOOL JAYANTI COLIERY DIST- SINGRAJULI MADHYA PRADESH 3:K.M. MATHAI S/O MATHAI MANNAN R/O SHANTI NAGAR RUPAI SIDING P.O. AND P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM P/R/A KALAPURACHAMUGHALIL HOUSE P.O.- KATTAYAM KERAL Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C SAIKIA, MR. J P BARUAH,MS M SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER (ORAL) Date : 18.05.2026 Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Page No.# 3/8 the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.08.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia, thereby rejecting the prayer made in Petition No. 2574/2025, filed by the petitioners (i.e. defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3) in connection with T.S. No. 30/2019. 3. Petition No. 2574/2025 is an application filed under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) of the CPC, inter alia, praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondent no.1/plaintiff has made an unequivocal admission that the defendants are true owners of the suit property. 4. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No. 1 as plaintiff, had filed a suit, being T.S. No. 30/2019, seeking declaration that the plaintiff has acquired valid and enforceable right having legal authority in respect of the suit property under Memorandum of Understanding (MoU for short); declaration that the plaintiff is legally entitled to continue the control and management of the suit property and the defendants have no sanction in law to cause any interference thereto; for declaration that the plaintiff is legally entitled to manage and control the suit property on the basis of investment made in accordance with MoU; for declaration that the plaintiff having acquired the actual possession, management and control of the suit property, cannot be dispossessed or otherwise obstructed therefrom save and except in due process of law; for declaration that the power of attorney executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff in furtherance of MoU has continuing legal effect and force and the plaintiff already having given effect to the same is legally entitled to act and continue under the same; for declaration that the revocation of the cancellation of Power-of -Attorney dated 19.12.2018 by the defendant No. 2 is illegal, inoperative, null and void and cannot have any effect upon the running and Page No.# 4/8 managing of the suit property by the plaintiff and the said document is liable to be cancelled; as well as for other reliefs. 5. 5. It would suffice to mention that by way of MoU dated 19.12.2018, the total management of the educational institution under the name and style of “Learners' High School” and “Learners' Junior College” with a residential building standing on a plot of land which is morefully described in the narration of the MoU was handed over by the petitioner No. 2 to the respondent-defendant No. 1 purportedly on account of agreement between the parties by which the respondent No.1 - plaintiff had agreed to invest an agreed amount of Rs.1.00 Crore in the manner as provided in the MoU. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in the proceedings, the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff had admitted that the ownership of the properties vested in the petitioner No. 2. However, despite the petitioner No. 2, being the owner of the property covered by the said MoU, has been prevented to enter into the said building and to manage the affairs of the educational institution. 7. Accordingly, on the ground that the property in question was not transferred or sold and the MoU was not registered, which according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is required under Section 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, it has been submitted that the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff cannot be permitted to take recourse to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In other words it is submitted that without registration of the said MoU, the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff would not be entitled to any protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In support of the said contention, reliance is Page No.# 5/8 placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656. 8. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the candid admission by the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff that the ownership of the property belonged to the petitioner No. 2, the suit was liable to be rejected on admission. Referring to the statements made in paragraph-5 of the this application, it is submitted that the petitioners have filed Title Suit No. 53/2019 by way of counter-claim, praying to declare that the respondent have no right to take possession of the suit property on the basis of an unregistered MoU dated 19.12.2018. 9. In support of the said submissions, the counter-claim filed by the petitioner is not on record. On a query of the Court, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he also does not have a copy of the counter-claim. Therefore, the nature of the prayer made in the counter-claim is not known. 10. From the copy of the order-sheets which are annexed as Annexure-5 to this application, it is noticed that while Petition No. 2574/2025 was filed by one Rajesh Karmakar, purportedly as attorney of the petitioner No. 2 - defendant No. 2, for passing judgment on admission, the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff had also filed Petition No. 3105/2025 praying for a judgment on admission on the ground that the defendants had admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 11. The learned Trial Court, having considered the petition, took into consideration the stand that the defendants had filed Title Suit No. 53/2019 praying for declaration that the defendant No. 1 (i.e. the respondent No. 1 - Page No.# 6/8 plaintiff in T.S. No. 30/2019), had no right to take possession of the suit property based on MoU dated 19.12.2018. Thus, from the copy of the order- sheet annexed as Annexure-5, it does not appear that both the proceedings of T.S. No. 30/2019 and the proceedings of T.S. No. 53/2019 are being taken up as a suit and a counter-claim. Therefore, it appears that both the suits might be analogously being tried, but not as suit and counter-claim. However, this is only a tentative view and not a finding of the Court. 12. Although the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has tried to project that by way of an MoU, if the management of the properties is transferred to the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff in T.S. No. 30/2019, such an MoU is required to be compulsorily registered and in support, the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (supra) was cited. 13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any statement in the said MoU by virtue of which it can be culled out as if the property described in the said MoU was being irreversibly transferred. Therefore, on facts, the present case in hand is not similar with the facts of the case in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (supra). 14. The said judgment in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), the case proceeds on a premise that there is an ongoing practice whereby properties are being transferred by way of Power-of-Attorney or by execution of an “Agreement for Sale” supported by Power-of-Attorney. The modus operandi of such Agreement for Sale and the General Power-of-Attorney is more fully described in paragraph-2 of the said judgment. None of the said clauses referred to in paragraph-2 of the said judgment are found to be applicable in the present case in hand. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for Page No.# 7/8 the petitioners has not been able to satisfy the Court that the MoU partakes the character of a sale within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The MoU appears only to be for taking over the management of the educational institution and the properties associated with the educational institution. 15. The said portion is further fortified be the prayer No. D of the plaint in T.S. No. 30/2019, by which the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the plaintiff having acquired the actual possession, management and control of the suit property, cannot be dispossessed or otherwise obstructed therefrom, save and except in due process of law. Thus, the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff does not seek a perpetual title over the suit property. Therefore, as the MoU, ex facie, cannot be said to limit or extinguish title, which is inherent in Section 17 of the Registratioin Act, 1908, the ratio laid down in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (supra) would not help the petitioners on any count whatsoever. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.08.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia, holding that it would be appropriate to decide the issues framed in the suit after taking evidence of the parties and it would not be proper to dispose of the suit by allowing the said two petitions and accordingly, Petition No. 3105/2025, the one filed by Rajesh Karmakar, attorney of defendant No. 2, namely, Varghese Panjikaran, and Petition No. 2574/2025, petition filed by the petitioner - respondent No. 1, both for rejection of plaint, were rejected. 17. The Court does not find the said decision to be contrary to any law for the time being in force. The Court does not find the said order to be perverse or Page No.# 8/8 illegal or based on considering extraneous materials. 18. Therefore, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. 19. Nothing contained in this order shall be treated as a finding of fact and therefore, shall not prejudice the parties when the suit is heard on merit. 20. There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant