Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned First Appellate Court' ) dated 24.02.2016 whereby the Title Appeal No.11/2015 was dismissed and the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No.2, Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court) in Title Suit No.87/2010 dated 17.07.2015 was affirmed.

3. It is seen that the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide the Order dated 13.05.2016 had admitted the instant appeal by formulating two substantial questions of law which being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

                   1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in view of bar under Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 in view of absence of the prayer of declaration of title?

                   2. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are vitiated for non-compliance of the provision of Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

4. The respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff had instituted the suit being Title Suit No.87/2010 before the learned Trial Court seeking a decree for imperfect partition in respect to the land of the plaintiff's share; a precept be issued to the Collector on the basis of the preliminary decree and thereupon to pass a final decree. The plaintiff also sought for a decree for handing over the possession of his share by the Amin Commission. Apart from that, the plaintiff sought for a decree for declaration of his title in respect to his share of the suit land.

5. The case of the plaintiff in short is that one Taiyab Ali Laskar who was the father of the plaintiff as well as the predecessor-in-interest of the principal defendant No.1 to 5 and the proforma defendant Nos.6 to 9 was the owner of 6 bighas of land covered by Dag No.78/490 of 2nd R.S. Patta No.114 of Mouza-Dholai Molai Part-I. The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff along with the principal defendants and the proforma defendants were in joint possession of 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks of land which has been specifically described in the Schedule to the plaint and the plaintiff has been requesting the principal defendants as well as the proforma defendants for partition since the month of January, 2009. However, both the principal defendants and the proforma defendants did not adhere to the said request, and it is under such circumstances, the suit was filed.

6. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 filed their written statement stating inter-alia that out of the 6 bighas of land which was owned by Late Taiyab Ali Laskar, he had sold 1 bigha 1 katha 11 chattaks of land by a registered Deed of Sale No. 401 dated 04.07.1991 in favour of one Ismail Ali. Thereupon, Late Taiyab Ali Laskar sold 2 bighas of land in Dag No.78/490 and 1 bigha 12 kathas 12 chattaks in Dag No.490/555 to the defendant No.1 vide the registered Sale Deed No.1356 dated 31.12.1997. Apart from that, another plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha 5 kathas 9 chattaks which was left out and was sold to the defendant No.2 vide an unregistered Deed of Sale dated 30.03.1998, and therefore, there was no land left for partition. It is under such circumstances prayed that the suit was required to be dismissed.

7. An additional written statement was also filed by the defendant No.1 to 5 after the amendment of the plaint wherein it was denied that the plaintiff along with the principal defendants and the proforma defendants were in joint possession of 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks of land.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as five issues which being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

                   (i) Is there any cause of action for the suit?

                   (ii) Whether Late Taiyab All died about 10-12 years ago leaving behind the suit land as the joint property of the plaintiffs and the defendants?

                   (iii) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?

                   (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any decree as prayed for?

                   (v) To what relieves are the plaintiff entitled?

9. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and on behalf of the defendants, three witnesses were also examined. The plaintiff exhibited the Jamabandi as Exhibit-1 which was also exhibited by the defendants as Exhibit-A. Further to that, the defendants exhibited the Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.1356 as Exhibit-C; the unregistered Sale Deed as Exhibit-E and Exhibit-F to Exhibit-F17 which were the revenue paying receipts.

10. The learned Trial Court while deciding the Issue No.(ii) after taking into account the evidence on record and further holding that the sale which was made vide the registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.1356 dated 31.12.1997 was only in respect to 2 bighas of land from Dag No.78/490 and vide the unregistered Sale Deed made in favour of the defendant No.2 had not effected the immovable property as the said document was an unregistered document came to a finding that the total land available for partition amongst the plaintiff, principal defendants as well as the proforma defendants was 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit on contests with cost against the defendants and further declared the title of the plaintiff over 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks of land under Dag No.78/490 of Patta No.114 and further ordered that the plaintiff shall be delivered with khas possession over his share of land on partition by the Amin Commission. The learned Trial Court further directed drawing up of the preliminary decree.

11. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 preferred an Appeal which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.11/2015. The learned First Appellate Court by accepting the reasons so assigned by the learned Trial Court, affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2016, and it is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been filed.

12. By an earlier Order dated 24.06.2025 passed in the instant second appeal, it was held that the first substantial question of law referred to above does not arise in the instant second appeal, and only the second substantial question of law relating to whether the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court stands vitiated for non-compliance with the provision of Order 20 Rule 18 CPC and it was held that the same arises as a substantial question of law. By the said order, it was held as follows:-

                   “16. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now consider as to whether the second substantial question of law is duly involved in the instant Appeal. It would be seen that both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court committed an error in not deciding the shares of the plaintiff viz-a-viz the principal defendants and the proforma defendants though it was a categorical admitted case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff as well as the principal defendants and the proforma defendants had co-ownership rights over 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks of land. It was therefore the incumbent duty on the part of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court to ascertain the shares amongst the plaintiff, principal defendants as well as the proforma defendants in respect to the suit land and thereupon could have directed the Collector to act in terms with Section 54 of the Code. This having been not done, in the opinion of this Court, was contrary to the provision of Order XX Rule 18 of the Code.”

13. Thereafter, this Court proceeded to frame an additional issue under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC, which is as follows.

                   "What would be the respective shares of the plaintiff, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the proforma defendant Nos.6 to 9 in respect to the suit land, i.e. 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks?"

14. The Title Appeal No. 11/2015 was restored for the limited purpose of ascertaining the shares of the plaintiff, the principal defendants and the proforma defendants and the parties were directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court for the purpose of deciding the additional issue framed. Upon appearance of the parties before the learned First Appellate Court, the learned Appellate Court proceeded to hear the parties on the additional issue so framed and after considering the evidence adduced, determined the respective shares of the parties as reflected in it’s Judgment & Order dated 29.10.2025 in Title Appeal No. 11/2015.

15. The only remaining substantial question of law in the instant second appeal was in relation to the omission of the learned Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court to decide the respective shares of the plaintiff, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the proforma defendant Nos. 6 to 9 in respect of the suit land measuring 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks. Since the said aspect of the matter has already been taken care of by the aforesaid order of the learned First Appellate Court, no substantial question of law survives for adjudication in the present second appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

16. The impugned Judgment & Order of the First Appellate Court inclusive of the Order dated 29.10.2025 in Title Appeal No. 11/2015 stands affirmed.

17. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

18. Sent back the TCR.