Abdul Rejak Laskar vs. Mafizur Rahman
The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Abdul Rejak Laskar vs. Mafizur Rahman (Civil Appeal No. 14805 of 2024), delivered on December 20, 2024. It addresses key legal issues surrounding partition of property under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts.
Summary of Key Points
Case History:
- The dispute originated from land transactions in 1977. The appellant (plaintiff) claimed ownership and possession of the land, which was contested by the respondents (defendants).
- Multiple rounds of litigation occurred, including Title Suit No. 67/1979, various appeals, and attempts to secure partition and possession through civil and revenue courts.
Core Legal Issues:
- Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's partition suit, considering Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
- Applicability of conditions under Section 97 of the Regulation for imperfect partition.
Arguments:
- For the Appellant: The civil court's jurisdiction was not barred because the conditions for imperfect partition under Section 97 (actual possession and consent from co-sharers) were absent. Without alternative remedies, the appellant sought relief in the civil court.
- For the Respondents: The claim for partition was barred as it did not satisfy conditions under Sections 97 and 154 of the Regulation, and the appellant bypassed procedural requirements by avoiding appeals to revenue authorities.
Supreme Court’s Analysis:
- Partition of revenue-paying properties must primarily be handled by revenue authorities, but civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate title and ownership disputes.
- Section 154(1)(e) bars civil court jurisdiction for imperfect partitions only if a perfect partition claim is maintainable under Section 97. Since the appellant was not in possession, the bar under Section 154 did not apply.
- The High Court's judgment quashing the First Appellate Court's decree was incorrect, as the First Appellate Court rightly recognized the appellant's right to seek partition and possession through the civil court.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court restored the First Appellate Court's decision, granting the appellant partition of the land and directing issuance of precepts to revenue authorities for implementation.
- Judgment :