Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
M/S Gauhati Roller Flour Mills Ltd. — Appellant
Versus
Smti Premoda Medhi And Others — Respondent
RSA 35 of 2012
Decided on : 15-02-2022
Title Suit - The Companies Act, 1956 - Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure - [Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court discussed the validity of the appellant's claim over a plot of land based on a sale deed and the requirement of proving the sale deed as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also considered the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining a second appeal under Section 100 CPC and the definition of a substantial question of law in a second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a private limited company, claimed right, title, and interest over a plot of land and sought to evict the respondents. The respondents denied the appellant's ownership and claimed to be the actual owners of the land. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove its right, title, and interest over the suit land based on the sale deed, and therefore, the trial court and the first appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at correct findings.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability and valuation of the suit, the appellant's right, title, and interest over the land, and the entitlement to the reliefs claimed for.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of proving the sale deed as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act and discussed the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed accordingly.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. H. Deka, learned Sr. counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Deka, Advocate appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the respondents.
2. This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed by the Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 37/2007 upholding the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 2), Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 230/2002 is under challenge.
3. Case of the appellant:- the appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956. Shri Shankar Lal Bagri is a Director and the constituted attorney of the appellant company.
4. The respondents are the legal heirs of late Ghana Kanta Medhi.
5. On execution of a registered sale deed, On 05.03.1971, the appellant purchased a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 3 kathas and 15 lechas covered by Dag Nos. 708 and 710 and Patta No. 2 and Dag No. 953, Patta No. 288 of village Japarigog under Beltola mouza within the jurisdiction of Guwahati Circle Office in the district of Kamrup, from Ramesh Kumar Bowri (minor), who acted through his father Shri Jagannath Bowri.
6. On the Western boundary of the said land the respondents have their land, when they have been running a restaurant called 'Oasis Restaurant'.
7. The appellant pleaded that on one occasion the respondents raised some temporary thatched shed over a portion of land of the appellant. The said portion of the land measures 72 ft x 30 ft (suit land). The respondents told the appellant that the aforesaid restaurant had received a big food supply order and, therefore, they needed extra space for that purpose. The respondents undertook to remove those structures after finishing the job.
8. On 08.06.2002, the respondent no. 2, in association with some other persons, attempted to raise a pucca wall on the South-West side of the suit land. In a similar manner, again on 10.06.2002, the respondent no. 2 started to construct the boundary wall.
9. Aggrieved by the acts of the respondents, the appellant approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guwahati and filed a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate passed an order in favour of the appellant but subsequently this Court was pleased to set aside the said order.
10. Finally, the plaintiff filed a suit praying for declaration of its right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of possession of the same by evicting the respondents.
11. Case of the respondents: the respondents specifically denied that the appellant that the appellant had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 3 kathas and 15 lechas of land on 05.03.1971 from Ramesh Kumar Bowri on 05.03.1971.
12. The respondents pleaded that they are the actual owners of the suit land and that is why, in the year 1985, they had constructed an Assam Type House there. They further pleaded that the appellant is well aware of those facts but never raised any objection at that time. According to the respondents, the Oasis Restaurant is situated on the suit land and in the year 1994 it was leased to a person called Shri Akhil Choudhury on payment of rent.
13. The respondents claimed that the appellant has staked claim over the suit land at a belated stage for illegal gain and wrongful bargain.
14. Regarding the allegation that on 10.06.2002 the respondents tried to construct a boundary wall, they have stated that a boundary wall already existed on all sides except an area of 10 ft on North South direction abutting the G.S. Road.
15. The respondents claimed that on 12.03.1979 their predecessor late Ghana Kanta Medhi had purchased the suit land from Ms. Hamida Nessa by executing a registered sale deed. Revenue records were accordingly corrected.
16. On the basis of the pleadings of both sides, the learned trial court framed the following iss
The requirement of proving a sale deed as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act and the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership, adhering to limitation periods, and joining necessary parties in civil suits.
The second appeal requires substantial questions of law that affect party rights; concurrent factual findings from lower courts are binding unless proved perverse.
The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership and complying with the rules of non-joinder of parties and limitation in civil suits.
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....
The courts upheld the validity of a sale deed executed by a relative, finding no proof of ownership or possession by the appellant, thus affirming the dismissal of the appeal.
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
