Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Mousomi Dey And Ors – Appellant
Versus
Shikha Dey And 27 Ors – Respondents
RSA 88 of 2022
Decided on : 10-06-2022
Code of Civil Procedure - Sections 100 and 100(4) - Order XLI Rule 11 - Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 107/145/146 - Seeking declaration of their right, title and interest for their respective shares - No substantial Question of Law -. Appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings, or it was based on no evidence, or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence, or it was recorded against the provisions of law and lastly the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. If any or more grounds as mentioned herein above is made out in an appropriate case, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, such ground or grounds will constitute substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code. (Para 16,17)
Finding of the Court:
Pertained to NOC permission for sale given in favour of Asgarh Ali to sell the land to plaintiff and Exhibit-12 would only show that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land, the same does not have any relevance inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to prove that they or their predecessors in interest had right, title and interest over the suit land - Instant suit is not a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act but a suit based upon title and as such in order to get consequential reliefs, the plaintiffs had to prove their right, title and interest over the suit land - It is also not res-integra that when perversity is alleged in respect to a judgment and decree, it is required for appellant to show that certain vital pieces of evidence have not been taken into consideration which if had been taken into consideration would have changed the course of the result in the litigation - Appellant further submitted that Exhibit-E is the Deed of Sale bearing Deed principal defendant and the said Deed of Sale would show that Deed of Sale was executed prior to purchase of stamp paper said cannot be a substantial question of law - Appellant further submitted that a substantial questions of law arises in as much as in suit on account of a mistake on the part of the earlier counsel of the plaintiffs, the suit was filed for recovery of possession instead the suit ought to have been for confirmation of possession.
Result: Appeal stands dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. R.C. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “Code”) against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.10/2017 whereby the First Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2016 passed in Title Suit No.125/2008 by the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, Assam.
3. The instant appeal has been taken up for consideration at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the whether there arises any substantial question of law for admission of the instant appeal to be formulated. For the purpose of deciding the said aspect to the matter, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the case. For the purpose of convenience, the parties before this Court are referred to in the same status as they were before the Trial Court.
4. The appellants herein as plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of their right, title and interest for their respective shares; for delivery of Khas possession of the suit land by demolishing and removing any structures constructed by the defendants; for permanent injunction against the defendant, her men, agents, servants and workers as well as restraining defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land and also from making any illegal construction over the suit land.
5. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that one Asgarh Ali Dewan was the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha covered by Dag No.15 of K.P. Patta No.16 of Village Jyotikuchi, Mouza Beltola, in the District of Kamrup(M), Assam. In course of time, the Patta number i.e. Patta No.16 was changed to Patta No.246, however the Dag No.15 remained the same.
6. In the year 1997, the said Asgarh Ali Dewan offered to sell the said plot of land of 1 Bigha to both the plaintiffs. Initially, the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 purchased 1 Katha 5 Lecha and 1 Katha 10 Lecha respectively out of the said 1 Bigha of land by two separate registered Sale Deeds bearing No. 4759 and 4758 respectively, both dated 09.09.1997 and took over possession of the said land. Subsequent thereto, vide two more Registered Sale Deeds i.e. Sale Deed No. 6150 dated 13.11.1998 and Registered Sale Deed No.6149 dated 13.11.1998 were executed whereby the Plaintiff No.1 purchased 1 Katha and 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land from the said Asgarh Ali Dewan. Therefore, in total the Plaintiff No.1 had purchased 3 Katha 10 Lecha of land and the Plaintiff No.2 purchased 1 Katha 10 Lechas of land. The lands described in Schedule in A, B, C and D are on the basis of the Sale Deeds as would appear from a perusal of the plaint. However, relevant herein to mention cumulatively that the land mentioned in the Schedules to the plaint measures 1 Bigha. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs after purchase of the land and the possession being handed over erected boundary pucca pillars and constructed the foundation of the plinth of the brickwall on all sides of the suit land and a tinchali was also constructed over the same and were in physical possession of the suit land which comprised of Schedule A, B, C and D lands. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 12.04.2006, the defendant accompanied and assisted by gang of notorious, desperate persons trespassed into the suit land, demolished the boundary pillars and plinth of the proposed brick walls and engaged labourers and masons to erect boundary walls over the plinth that was constructed by the plaintiffs and the defendant has also erected a tinchali on the suit land. Under such circumstances, as the rights of the plaintiffs were affected by the alleged illegal trespass made by the defendant, the suit was filed seeking the reliefs as aforementioned. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.125/2008. It may not out of place to mention that the suit was fi
SupremeToday
Merely stating that the said Exhibits are false, would not make the same a substantial question of law. Moreover, it is also a well established principle of law that to be a substantial question of l....
Point of Law : Question of law of importance to the parties was a substantial question of law entitling the appellant to a certificate under (the then) Section 110 of the Code.
The validity of a sale deed confers title to the purchaser, and claims of permissive occupation by defendants do not negate this ownership.
It is trite that once declaration of right, title and interest have been granted in favour of a particular person, person who claims adversarial interest has to show a better title as to why he shoul....
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must involve substantial questions of law, and unregistered tenancy agreements cannot establish non-evictable rights.
Concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court are binding unless demonstrated to be perverse; appeals under Section 100 cannot disturb established facts without substantial questio....
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
The main legal point established is that in a dispute over a sale deed, the plaintiff must establish a clear and specific identity of the land to prove a better title than the defendant.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
