LAWS(GAU)-2011-7-35

GONGJI MARAK Vs. SENGSON SANGMA

Decided On July 13, 2011
GONGJI MARAK Appellant
V/S
SENGSON SANGMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the petitioners are aggrieved by the ex parte judgment and order dated 25.11.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Officer, Subordinate Court, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura (for short `GHADC') declaring the respondents right, title and interest over the land, for which a parallel claim is made by the petitioners.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they filed a Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2009 against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2008 before the learned Chief Judicial Officer, District Court, GHADC. After sometime, the Presiding Officer of the Court was apparently promoted to the post of Judicial Officer, District Council Court, GHADC, Tura and accordingly expressed his inability to entertain the appeal against the same judgment and order passed by him. He, therefore, directed the petitioners to seek redressal from this Court under Rule 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order 1954. THE case of the petitioners in the suit is that the suit property was mortgaged by their father and that on the death of their father they inherited the same in accordance with matriarchal customs and usages prevalent among the Garo Scheduled Tribe. THE allegation of the petitioners is that after the death of their father, they have already redeemed the mortgaged land by repaying the mortgage amount of Rs. 4,000/-. However, the respondent No. 2 surreptitiously and fraudulently obtained the patta i.e. PP No. 7 and Dag No. 11 from the District Council in respect of the same land. On learning this, the suit was filed by the petitioners. At the outset, I have on earlier occasion asked Mrs S Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioners to produce any document showing the redemption of the mortgaged property from the respondent No. 2, for which some time was given to her. This is also the contention of Mr AH Hazarika, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, who submits that the petitioners no longer have any semblance of right, title and interest as they have never redeemed the same as claimed by them.