2022 Supreme(Gau) 1251

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
On The Death Of Dharmeswar Baishya His Legal Heirs Anjan Jyoti Baishya And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sarvodaya Trust, Represented By Its Secy. and Anr. – Respondents
RSA No.21 Of 2018
Decided On : 22-06-2022

A substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned.

Headnote:

TITLE SUIT - SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY - GIFT DEED - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW - CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT - PERVERSE FINDING - SCHEDULE-A PROPERTY - SCHEDULE-I PROPERTY - COUNTERCLAIM - MAINTAINABILITY - LICENSE - POSSESSION - TITLE - ADJUDICATION - EJECTMENT - ADVERSE POSSESSION - DUE PROCESS OF LAW - TITLE SUIT FOR POSSESSION - PLEADINGS - DOCUMENTS - ONUS OF PROOF - DISMISSAL OF APPEAL.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a suit seeking declaration that he shall not be evicted without due process of law and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the premises described in Schedule-B. The defendants filed a written statement-cum-counterclaim, claiming declaration of right, title, and interest over the schedule properties, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit and decreed the counterclaim. The First Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which formulated a substantial question of law: Whether the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below suffers from perversity without taking into consideration that Schedule-B (Schedule-II) is not a part of Exhibit-C, i.e., the registered Gift Deed dated 30.05.1977.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the substantial question of law formulated by it was not involved in the case. The court found that the plaintiff admitted that the Schedule-B property was a part of Schedule-A, which was gifted to the defendant No. 1. The court also noted that there was no pleading to the effect that Schedule-B property was not a part of Schedule-A property. The court further held that the plaintiff's only case in the suit was that he should not be evicted without following the due process of law, and that he had not challenged the title of the defendants or claimed any right by way of adverse possession. On the other hand, the defendants had pleaded as well as proved that the defendant No. 1 trust was the absolute owner of the Schedule-I property. Therefore, the court held that the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit and decreed the counterclaim.

Issues: 1. Whether the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below suffers from perversity without taking into consideration that Schedule-B (Schedule-II) is not a part of Exhibit-C, i.e., the registered Gift Deed dated 30.05.1977? 2. Whether the plaintiff has a right to sue? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 5. Whether the counterclaim is maintainable? 6. Whether the defendant is a licensee under the defendant No. 1, if so whether he has a right to possess the suit land after receiving the notice issued by the defendant No. 1? 7. Whether the decadents have acquired right, title, and interest over the suit property? 8. Whether the defendants are entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession by evicting the plaintiff from the land and property shown in schedule-I and II in the Counter-claim?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. 2. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. 3. A suit for possession has two parts -first, adjudication of title, and second, adjudication of possession. If the title dispute is removed and the title is established in one or the other, then, in effect, it becomes a suit for ejectment where the defendant must plead and prove why he must not be ejected. 4. When pleadings and documents establish title to a particular property and possession is in question, it will be for the person in possession to give sufficiently detailed pleadings, particulars, and documents to support his claim in order to continue in possession. 5. Once the title is prima-facie established, it is for the person who is resisting the title-holder’s claim to possession to plead with sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to remain in possession and place before the court all such documents as in the ordinary course of human affairs are expected to be there.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.