The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving adoption as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and the necessity of formulating substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. G. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The plaintiff as appellant has preferred an appeal under Section 100 of CPC 1908, against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1 at Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 27/2007 by upholding the judgment dated 10.04.2007 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2 in Title Suit No. 471/2006.

3. The case of the appellant is that she owned and possessed a plot of land measuring 23 bighas and 13 lechas under several dag numbers and patta numbers situated under village Dhupguri, Mouza Luki under Boko revenue circle in the district of Kamrup, Assam. The land revenue of the said land was being paid regularly by the appellant. The said land was used as agricultural land and some of the portion was used as Basti land as there were bamboo and other trees. According to the appellant, it is the ancestral property of the appellant and after the death of her father, Nepal Chandra Rabha, the said land was mutated in her name, and since then she had been in possession of the said land without any interference from others.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal, the original plaintiff/appellant died and in her place, subsequently her husband and her sons and daughters had been impleaded by substitution. Subsequently, the husband of the original plaintiff also expired.

5. The allegation against the defendant/respondent is that on 13.03.2002 and 02.04.2002, the respondent and his employees had tried to take forcible possession of the suit land, but they failed to do anything. On 13.02.2002, the respondent/defendant threatened the plaintiff/appellant by using filthy languages and stated that the portion of B Schedule land would be occupied by the defendant. It was alleged that the action of the respondent/defendant was absolutely illegal and unauthorized and as such the appellant had filed a title suit for declaration of her right, title and interest and confirmation of possession and for permanent and perpetual injunction.

6. Against the said title suit, the respondent/defendant had filed a written objection wherein it is stated that the appellant/plaintiff was not the daughter and legal heir of Late Nepal Chandra Rabha, she was the daughter of Late Dewan Rabha, and as such she was not entitled to get any property of Late Nepal Chandra Rabha. The father of the appellant lived at village Rukminigaon Guwahati. She was married to one Purna Swargiary of village Rukminigaon Guwahati. After the death of her father, Dewan Rabha, her maternal grandfather took them to the village Sukaniyapara to occupy the land of Dewan Rabha and accordingly she got the land of her father at village Sukaniyapara and permanently settled therein. Subsequently, the appellant/plaintiff got her name fraudulently mutated alongwith the name of Late Nepal Chandra Rabha by showing that she was the daughter and only legal heir of Late Nepal Chandra Rabha. The respondent/defendant owned and possessed 8 bighas 2 kathas and 10 lechas of Dag No. 864 and 865 of village Dhupguri, Mouza-Luki by right of purchase.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, six issues were framed by the trial court, out of which two issues are important which are reproduced as follows:

Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land.

Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for.

8. The learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has observed in Issue No. 4 as follows:

“According to the plaintiff the suit property is the ancestral property of her father Late Nepal Chandra Rabha and after the death of her father, the suit land is mutated in her name and thereafter the plaintiff possesses the land without any interference from others.

In the written statement, the defendant has stated that the plaintiff is not the