GUWAHATI, India, July 19 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 18:

1. Heard Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2a to 2 g, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. She further submitted that she has instruction(s) to appear on behalf of the newly substituted respondent Nos. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.

3. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned First Appellate Court") in Title Appeal No. 37/2005 whereby the appeal was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2005 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Trial Court") in Title Suit No. 307/1999.

4. It is seen that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 20.08.2010 admitted the instant appeal by formulating a substantial question of law which reads as under:

"1. Whether the Appellate Court misread the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and if so, what will be its effect? "

5. The question arises before this Court, as to whether, the said substantial question of law so formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court is involved in the present appeal.

6. For ascertaining the same, this Court briefly would like to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the present appeal.

7. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs had instituted a suit seeking various reliefs. Taking into account the substantial question of law so formulated by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court finds it apposite to reproduce the reliefs which have been sought for by the plaintiffs in the said suit herein below:

"a. A decree declaring the plaintiffs right, title, interest and possession in the land of Schedule-B.

b. A decree declaring that the defendant Nos. 1 to 12 had no right to sell the entire land of Khatian No. 59 and that the sale deeds Nos. 1228, 1229 of Dhubri Sub-registration Office, dated 4.6.97, executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 20, 21, 22 purporting to transfer the entire land of Khatian No. 58 are fraudulent illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

c. A decree declaring that by virtue of the sale deeds Nos. 1228, 1229 and 1232, defendants Nos. 20, 21 and 22 have acquired no right, title and interest in the land of Schedule- B.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=oo%2BtRJJeFk03ErxBsOJjIHg96d33fUGIUlsFmHkVVxf1KZvdh07buAH2wgvGhJeg&caseno=RSA/162/2010&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010006572010&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.