Jaltiram Choudhury and Others vs Krishna Kanta Rajbansi and Others

Deka, J.—This is an appeal from the order of the A.D.C. Kamrup, dated 21-2-51 dismissing an appeal filed against the order of the S.D.C. Nalbari Circle, refusing to allow mutation of the names of the Appellants with respect to 2B-2K-2L of land covered by Dags Nos. 1524 and 2071 of N.K. Patta No. 9 of village Nijbahjani in the Bahjani Mouza of the Kamrup district. The Appellants applied for mutation on the basis of a purchase of the disputed lands from Respondents Nos. 16 to 18 by a registered sale deed dated 31-1-49 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The Petitioners claimed to be in possession of the land from the date of purchase and the application for mutation was made a few months after the purchase. The objectors numbering fifteen opposed this application for mutation on the ground that the land in dispute did not actually belong to Respondents Nos. 16 to 18 but was as a matter of fact included in Nisbikhiraj block of land belonging to a religious institution known as Agnisala Satra and that these objectors were in possession of the land from the days of their ancestors as Bhakats of the particular Satra. They resisted the prayer for mutation of the Appellants mainly on the ground that neither the vendors nor the vendees had any possession nor title with respect to the land. The patta being in the name of the vendors" and the sale to the Appellant not being denied, it cannot be said that the Defendants had acquired no prima facie title to the land. But the evidence as to possession by the Petitioners or the delivery thereof to them by the vendors at the time of the sale is very discrepant.

I have looked into and considered the evidence on the point and I cannot say that the Petitioners have succeeded in making out a case of obtaining possession or being in possession in pursuance of the purchase. u/s 50(1)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, it is not sufficient to get only a transfer of the title with respect to a particular plot of land to get mutation but in addition obtaining possession thereof is essential. In this case, as I have already indicated, I am very reluctant to disturb the findings of the Courts below with regard to absence of possession both of the vendors as well of vendees with respect to the land in dispute. I accordingly uphold the decision of the appellate Court and refuse to interfere. This is a fit matter that should go to the Civil Court for a proper decision as to title and possession of the Appellants on the basis of which mutation will be allowed or refused. The appeal is dismissed without cost.