Back
Century-Old Golf Course Lease Survives High Court Scrutiny: Admitted Deed Trumps Missing Original
In a nuanced ruling that safeguards a historic land deal while dismissing a second appeal, the has affirmed the 's rights over 10.19 acres leased in perpetuity since 1923. Justice W. Diengdoh, sitting singly, set aside flawed lower court findings but ultimately upheld the dismissal of the club's suit, emphasizing undisturbed possession amid boundary ambiguities.
Roots in Colonial-Era Paperwork: The 1923 Lease Saga
The Shillong Club, a company registered under the , has occupied land in Upper Shillong for golfing since a Lease Deed dated , executed with the (represented by respondents Nathaniel and A. Luckystar Thangkhiew as Joint Rangbah Kurng). This perpetual lease covers 10.19 acres, terminable only by the lessee with one year's notice.
Tensions flared in when the clan issued a letter claiming the "southern portion" as unutilized and announcing repossession. The clan had earlier ( ) leased 16.91 acres for 10 years, allegedly reducing it to 10.19 acres in 1923 after resuming ~6.72 acres. They later allotted parts of this resumed land to locals like and individuals for homes and a community hall, without club objection.
The club filed Title Suit No. 13(T)/ before the , seeking declaration of lawful possession and injunction against interference. The trial court dismissed it on , citing from the club's silence on prior allotments. The first appeal ( Title Civil Appeal No. 1(T)/2016 ) before was dismissed on , prompting SA No. 4/2023 .
Two substantial questions framed: (1) Can first appellate relief favor respondent sans cross-appeal? (2) Does exclude in Meghalaya's tribal areas?
Club Swings for Injunction, Clan Defends Resumed Land
Appellant's Arguments (Shillong Club, via ): The 1923 deed is perpetual, rent paid regularly for a century. The letter and newspaper ads selling "southern" plots threatened possession. No counterclaim by clan; trial court acknowledged no reversion link yet dismissed suit perversely. First appellate court flouted ( ), ignored admissions at para 85, drew unwarranted sans original deed dispute, and raised unpleaded Assam Regulation issue ( ). Invoke ( ) to nullify archaic regulation.
Respondents' Rebuttal (Thangkhiew Clan, via with ): No claim on 10.19 acres; letter targeted resumed 6.72 acres with encroachments. Club admitted no objection to 1991-2010 allotments/sales there. Trial/first appeals correctly dismissed sans proof of boundaries/location; no relief granted to clan ( ). Regulation finding incidental, not substantial.
Judicial Putts: Perversity, Admissions, and Unpleaded Defenses
Justice Diengdoh dissected lower rulings, branding the first appellate finding on deed invalidity "perverse" given mutual admissions ( ; ). Original non-production irrelevant absent dispute. The unraised Assam Frontier Tracts Regulation (invoked to exclude TPA, 1882) exceeded pleadings ( Akella Lalitha supra), especially post- Meghalaya statehood.
Trial court rightly noted on 6.72 acres due to club's inaction. Concurrent factual findings on possession intact ( ; ). No cross-appeal relief to clan; club's boundaries/relinquishment claims unproven amid local inspection objections.
As reported in legal circles, the court remarked: “In view of the admission of the parties as to the existence or authenticity of the said lease deed , the learned First Appellate Court could not have come to a finding that the said lease deed is not a valid deed. Such finding can be termed as a not based on evidence."
Key Observations
“...the learned First Appellate Court could not have come to a finding that the said lease deed is not a valid deed. Such finding can be termed as a not based on evidence, and this by itself, can constitute a to be decided by this Court.” (Para 48)
“...no relief could have been granted... outside the pleadings of the parties.” (Para 50, invoking Akella Lalitha)
“...the right of the appellant club over the said land covered by the said lease deed of 1923 has not been disturbed.” (Para 54)
“...the plaintiff failing to raise any objection at the relevant point of time, the objection raised subsequently is barred by .” (Trial court finding, Para 43)
No Birdie for Club: Appeal Dismissed, Possession Secure
The High Court dismissed the second appeal on : “In conclusion, this Court... finds no merits in this Second Appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.” It quashed the first appellate's perverse deed invalidity and Regulation findings but preserved core dismissals.
Implications? The club's 10.19-acre greens remain secure under admitted perpetual lease; southern 6.72 acres stays clan's, barring late claims. Future Meghalaya disputes gain clarity: admissions bind, unpleaded exotics flop, perverse calls reversible in second appeals. A balanced scorecard for tribal land legacies.
