The court's decision emphasized that technicalities should not defeat rendering of complete justice to the litigant and highlighted the importance of deciding the rights of the parties over the suit property.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 96 readwith Order 21 Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Kameng District, Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh in Title suit No.03/2017 (WSD/BDL).

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is that; the appellant as a plaintiff had filed the Title Suit being T.S. No.03/2017(WSD/BDL) before the learned District & Session Judge under Order VII Rule 1 and Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying, 1908 praying for declaration of the title, interest and confirmation of the possession of RCC residential building located at Manpet Bazar under Lumla Circle, Tawang District, Arunachal Pradesh. After final hearing of the aforesaid title suit, the learned Trial Court passed the Judgment & Order dated 20.12.2019, whereby; the suit of the plaintiff/present appellant was dismissed on some technical grounds.

4. Further, it has been stated that the plaintiff/present appellant was married to one Shri Lobsang Penjor, son of Lt. Dorjee Tsering in the year 1999 and two daughters were born out of their wedlock. But, the husband of the appellant left home in the year 2001 when the two daughters were small and purportedly have settled in Italy and he never provided any maintenance to them. The appellant somehow maintained her two daughters as a single mother. Nevertheless, in the month of 2017 the appellant’s husband suddenly appeared in the matrimonial house and without her knowledge he purportedly executed an agreement dated 05.07.2017, and on the basis of which, the respondent has surreptitiously plan to divide the matrimonial house which has been in peaceful possession of the appellant since 19 years.

5. The respondent being the elder brother of the appellant’s husband in the instant RFA started mental harassments by asking his share from the said building, even though, he does not have any share in the suit property as he was already given his share of properties before the death of his father Lt. Dorjee Tsering in the year 2014. Thus, the appellant had preferred the T.S. No.03/2017(WSD/BDL) for declaration of ownership right, title and interest and confirmation over the RCC building. However, the learned District Judge had dismissed the title suit vide Judgment & Order dated 20.12.2019 basing on some technical grounds that the agreement dated 05.07.2017 has not been challenged by the plaintiff/present appellant and also on the ground of non-joinder of the party as the appellant did not made her husband as a party in the said suit.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Division, Bomdila in T.S. No.03/2017(WSD/BDL), the present appeal has been preferred on the following grounds:-

6.1. The learned Trial Court has erred in law as well as in facts by dismissing the title suit of the appellant and as such the impugned Judgment & Order dated 20.12.2019 is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6.2. The learned District Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record, wherein, it has been stated that during the existence of Lt. Dorjee Tsering all the properties were divided amongst all the brothers as per the customary law. Also, the disputed property in question of Lt. Dorjee Tsering, which is the share of the present appellant’s husband, where, the appellant along with her two daughters is residing since her marriage with Shri Lobsang Penjor. However, the husband of the appellant deserted the appellant and his two daughters, who are also entitled for the said property in-question as per customary law. But, the learned Trial Court had passed the order without considering the evidence and thus, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2019 is liable to be set asid