Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
PURANDAR NATH S/O LATE PAYARAM NATH – Appellant
Versus
KHAGENDRA NATH S/O SHRI MANIK CHANDRA NATH – Respondent
RSA No. 211 of 2023
Decided On : 19-06-2024
CIVIL PROCEDURE - APPEAL UNDER CPC - CPC SECTION 100, 100(4) - The court analyzed the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, focusing on whether substantial questions of law could be formulated. The court highlighted that the findings of fact regarding possession and the validity of sale deeds were not substantial questions of law, as they were based on evidence and did not involve legal principles that warranted further examination. The court reaffirmed the authority of co-owners to sell their portions under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, influencing the decision to dismiss the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of right, title, and interest in a specific land parcel, claiming ownership through a registered sale deed from a co-owner. The defendant contested the claim, asserting that the land was not formally partitioned and that the plaintiff was never in possession. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, leading to an appeal by the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both lower courts had correctly determined the facts regarding the plaintiff's possession and the validity of the sale deeds. The evidence supported the plaintiff's claims, and the defendant's arguments were deemed insufficient to establish a substantial question of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land prior to filing the suit. 2. Whether the sale deeds executed by the proforma defendant conferred valid rights to the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the determination of possession and the validity of the sale deeds were factual matters, not substantial questions of law. It emphasized that the co-owner's right to sell their portion of the land under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act was upheld.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no substantial question of law to warrant interference with the lower courts' decisions.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. D. Mozumdar, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.
2. The instant appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Darrang (for short “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 01/2022 whereby the appeal filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Mangaldai, Darrang (for short “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 56/2013.
3. The instant appeal is being taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code to consider as to whether any substantial question of law can be formulated in terms with Section 100(4) of the Code.
4. For ascertaining as to whether the questions of law so proposed by the Appellant can at all be formulated, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts briefly which have led to the filing of the instant appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the learned Trial Court.
6. The Respondent No. 1 herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in respect to the land described specifically in Schedule-II of the plaint; a decree for recovery of khas possession from the Defendant No. 1 who is the appellant herein; a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land if a decree for recovery of possession is passed in future and for other reliefs.
7. The edifice on which the suit was filed was that the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with Proforma Defendant No. 2 were joint owners of a plot of land which have been specifically described in Schedule-I of the plaint. The said land measured 2 Bighas 4 Kathas 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 181 of K.P. Patta No. 139 situated at Village Khas Sonapur in the District of Darrang and specifically bounded by boundaries stated therein.
8. It was the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1980, there was an amicable partition between the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the Proforma Defendant No. 2 and the suit land which have been most specifically described in Schedule-II fell into the share of the Proforma Defendant No. 2. Thereupon, in the year 2005, vide a registered Deed of Sale, the Proforma Defendant No. 2 transferred the land which have been specifically described in Schedule-II(a) to the plaintiff vide a Registered Deed of Sale dated 12.08.2005. Subsequent thereto, vide another registered Deed of Sale dated 03.11.2005, the proforma Defendant No. 2 transferred another plot of land measuring 4 Kathas 6 Lechas to the plaintiff. It is also specifically mentioned that after purchasing the plots of land, the plaintiff was possessing the suit land without any objection or hindrance from the Defendant No. 1. However, on 26.02.2007, the Defendant No. 1 dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and it is under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 11/2007. However, on account of formal defects, the said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed seeking the relief(s) as aforestated which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 56/2013.
9. The Defendant No. 1 participated in the said trial by filing a written statement. In paragraph No. 2 of the said written statement, it was the specific contention of the Defendant No. 1 that the disputed Dag is yet to be partitioned between the Defendant No. 1 and the Proforma Defendant No. 2. In paragraph No. 3, it was also mentione
The court established that factual determinations regarding possession and the validity of sale deeds do not constitute substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the CPC, and affirmed the aut....
The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff proved his title and possession over the suit land, emphasizing that factual determinations cannot be disturbed without evidence of perv....
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 validity of a sale deed confers title to the purchaser, and claims of permissive occupation by defendants do not negate this ownership.
The court upheld the lower courts' findings on land ownership, ruling that the plaintiffs proved their rights, and dismissed the appeal due to lack of substantial questions of law.
Merely stating that the said Exhibits are false, would not make the same a substantial question of law. Moreover, it is also a well established principle of law that to be a substantial question of l....
To prove adverse possession, the claimant must establish possession adverse to the true owner, long and continuous possession known to the true owner, the date of possession, and open and undisturbed....
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
