NUR AHMED AND ANR. Vs. ON THE DEATH OF RAM LAKSHMAN GOALA
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Nur Ahmed And Anr.
On The Death Of Ram Lakshman Goala
Click here to view full judgement.
MIR ALFAZ ALI,J. -
(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiffs, is against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No.9/2007 by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi upholding and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), in Title Suit No.63/2003, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts leading to this second appeal were that the appellants herein, as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, that various sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 as guardian of the plaintiffs were illegal and void, recovery of possession and other reliefs. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that the suit land belonged to the father of the plaintiffs Late Surman Ali, who died in the year 1971. At the time of death of their father, the plaintiffs were minors. After death of the father of the plaintiffs, their mother, defendant No.2, was married to one Azad Ali and the plaintiffs were looked after and brought up by their maternal uncle and maternal grandmother. After attaining majority, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. The defendant No.1 claiming title over the suit land by right of purchase, instituted a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which was decreed in favour of the defendant No.1. From the various sale deeds produced by the defendant No.1 in the said suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiffs could know that the father of the plaintiffs by executing sale deeds No.4978 and 2829 in the year 1968 and 1970 respectively had sold total land measuring 1 bigha 4 kathas and 4 chataks to the defendant No.1. Thereafter, defendant No.2/mother of the plaintiffs as guardian of the minor executed sale deeds No.1734, 5371, 5014 and 5018 in favour of the defendant No.1, while the plaintiffs were minors. The plaintiffs averred, that their mother not being legal guardian, was not competent to transfer any land of the plaintiffs, who were minors at the relevant time and therefore, the sale deeds executed in the years 1974, 1978, 1979 and 1980 by defendant No.2 were void and did not convey any title to the defendant No.1. Hence, the plaintiffs brought the suit.
(3.) The case of the defendant No.1 was that the defendant No.2, for herself and as guardian of her minor sons executed sale deeds dated 06.03.1974, 14.06.1978, 21.05.1979 in favour of the defendant No.1, while the plaintiffs were minors. In order to cure the defect in the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 by way of ratification, the plaintiffs obtained an NOC from the Deputy Commissioner for executing a fresh sale/ratification deed and the plaintiffs also executed an unregistered sale deed ratifying the transfer of the suit land by the defendant No.2, as no registration was required for such ratification deed. On the basis of above pleading, learned Civil Judge Jr. Division (as was called then) framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land?
2. Whether the purchase deeds of the defendant No.1 including the deed, relating to the sale of right of ekrar, is valid and legal?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree relief(s) as prayed for?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.