Point of Law: First appellate court judgment fail to comply with the provision of law as laid in Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a judgment is not sustainable in law.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Iqbal, learned counsel representing the appellants as well as Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2019 passed by the court of the Addl. District Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title appeal No. 25/2013, confirming and upholding the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2013 passed by the court of the Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 17/2007, is under challenge.

3. The case of the appellants in a nutshell-Lakshmi Prasad Nunia and Sitaram Nunia were brothers. They inherited some lands from their predecessors. Out of their ancestral land, they sold of a part of it and the remaining portion of the land was partitioned amongst themselves. In that partition, a plot of land measuring 4 kathas and 8 lechas of Dag No. 650 of K.P. Patta No. 553 under Ulubari Mouza went to the share of Lakshmi Prasad Nunia and after his death, the appellants, being his legal heirs, inherited that property. Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan was suffering from cancer and in need of money. Therefore, he sold his share of land to other persons. Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan left behind his wife and children.

4. After the death of Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan, his legal heirs were in dire straits. Therefore, out of sympathy, the appellants allowed them to live in a portion of their land measuring 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 650 of K.P. Patta No. 553. The appellants even allowed the widow of Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan to construct a few rented houses for earning their livelihood. Thereafter, the respondent Sudama Chauhan got the names of the legal heirs of Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan mutated in the land records where it was shown that the wife of Sudama Chauhan had purchased 1 Katha 10 lechas of land out of 2 Kathas 10 lechas of land.

5. Therefore, the appellants filed the suit seeking right, title and declaration of the said 1 katha 10 lechas of land. It is claimed that Sudama Chauhan had fraudulently executed a sale deed No. 393 dated 29.04.2005 for selling the land to his wife Jharna Chauhan.

6. It is stated that Sudama Chauhan actually came to occupy a rented house situated over the said 1 katha 10 lechas of land as a tenant from the month of February, 2000. He was paying monthly rent to the wife of late Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan.

7. At that time, Lakshmi Prasad Chauhan, the predecessor of the appellants was alive and after his death on 11.01.2003, the entire land devolved upon the appellants. The name of late Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan was deleted from the land records. After the death of Lakshmi Prasad Nunia @ Chauhan intended to mutate their names in the land records and then only they came to know that the names of the widow of late Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan and his children were already mutated in respect of the land. They, therefore, filed an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue. The appellants further came to know that Sudama Chauhan also managed to have the name of late Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan mutated in respect of the entire land. The Assam Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence, they filed the suit before the court below.

8. Sudama Chauhan and his wife Jharna Chauhan contested the case by filing a joint written statement. They have claimed that the widow and children of late Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan had executed the sale-deed no. 393 dated 29.04.2005 in respect of the suit land. They further claimed that the appellants are strangers to the said sale deed and therefore they have no locus standi to challenge the same. According to the respondents Sudama Chauhan and his wife Jharna Chauhan, the appellants have concealed the name of those people whom late Sitaram Nunia @ Chauhan had sold his land.

9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether there is cause of ac