IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving title and interest in property disputes, and the significance of challenging relevant documents in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.J. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2022 passed in Title Appeal No. 73/2016 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the appeal was allowed thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. For the purpose of adjudicating as to whether there was any jurisdictional error or the learned First Appellate Court had exercised jurisdiction illegally as well as with material irregularity, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts leading to the filing of the instant application.

4. The predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent herein one Lajima Begum (since deceased) vide a registered Sale Deed No. 9414/07 dated 24.07.2007 purchased a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 1192 of K.P. Patta No. 187 of Village Dehan Garigaon under Mouza Jalukbari in the District of Kamrup along with an Assam Type house consisting of 4 (four) rooms, kitchen and latrine and bathroom and another Assam Type house consisting of two rooms standing over the said land from the defendant through his Power of Attorney holder one Mr. Osman Ali. On the date of sale, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the possession of the land and the houses were duly delivered. The defendant requested the plaintiff to allow him to stay in the Assam Type house consisting of 4 (four) rooms for 3/4 months wherein the defendant was residing as a permissive occupier till an alternative arrangement was made and with an undertaking that he would vacate the said house at any cost by making alternative arrangements. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to reside in the said house for 3/4 months from 24.07.2007 i.e. since the date of purchase of the said land and the house. It was alleged in the plaint that for the said 3/4 months, the plaintiff did not make any demand for the house rent from the defendant. However, after the period 3/4 months, the defendant failed to vacate the schedule premises. Upon demand, the defendant requested that he may be permitted to stay in the schedule premises for the month of January, 2008 and in that regard, a tenancy agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 03.01.2008. It was further alleged that the defendant thereupon failed to pay the rent as stipulated in the written agreement dated 03.01.2008 for which the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and further the plaintiff had bona-fide requirement of the schedule premises. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for ejectment of the defendant, his men, agents by removing their materials, articles belonging from the schedule premises as described in the plaint; a decree for arrear rent and for permanent injunction. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 200/2008.

5. The defendant thereupon filed a written statement challenging the title of the plaintiff and it was the categorical stand that the Attorney holder one Mr. Osman Ali was not authorized to sale the suit land as well as the houses to the plaintiff. It was denied that the possession of the suit land and the house standing thereon were handed over to the plaintiff at any point of time as well as also denied about entering into the written agreement dated 03.01.2008 with the plaintiff. In view of the said categorical denial to the title of the plaintiff by the defendant, the suit was amended thereby incorporating the relief amongst others of declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land.

6. Pursuant to the amendment of the plaint, the defendant filed an amended written statement. On the basis of pleadings, as many as 6 (six) i