Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Md. Sahmat Ali, S/o Lt. Sadullah Sekh – Appellant
Versus
Altafuddin Ahmed Baruah, S/o Lt. Hussainuddin Ahmed – Respondent
RSA No. 65 of 2024
Decided on : 11-11-2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal against judgment and decree of First Appellate Court - The appellant contended that the suit was a representative suit requiring general notice and that necessary parties were not joined - The First Appellate Court found no merit in these claims, affirming the trial court's findings on title and possession - The High Court reiterated that findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are binding unless substantial questions of law arise - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 4, 10, 15)
(B) Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC - The High Court's jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact by lower courts are generally binding. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed ownership of land sold to him by a proforma defendant, while the respondents contended they were in possession based on a gift deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed it in favor of the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court found that the appellant had established his title and that the trial court had erred in its findings.
Issues: The main issues included whether the suit was representative, whether necessary parties were joined, and whether the trial court's findings were perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's claims were valid and that the trial court's dismissal was incorrect, emphasizing the importance of the sale deed as evidence of title.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S. Muktar, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. D.K. Bagchi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2022 passed in Title Appeal No.2/2022 by the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.08.2022, the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, has reversed the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2021, passed in Title Suit No.54/2013 by the learned Munsiff No.1, Darrang, Mangaldai.
3. The back ground facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:-
In the said suit, the defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by submitting written statement, stating therein that the plaintiff neither possessed the Schedule-“C” land nor constructed a house over the same and the defendants never trespassed to the same, as it was under the absolute possession of the defendants and that after the death of Dulesa Sheikh, his property was amicably settled amongst his 4(four) sons, namely, Didaruddin, Dana Sekh, Saban Ali and Sayad Ali and accordingly, Dana Sekh got 3 bigha 2 katha and 18 lechas of land and after the death of Dana Sheikh, his daughter Sarifun Nessa mutated her name in the plot of land measuring 2 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No.432 in P.P. No.410, situated at village Part-I Mouza- Sipajhar and she had executed a gift deed before the Notary Public in favour of the Secretary, Khetangpara Maszid Committee and donated a plot of land measuring 10 lechas out of 2 katha 5 lechas of land covered by P.P. No.410 and the said plot of land has shown as Schedule-“C” land in the plaint by the plaintiff and after execution of the gift deed, Maszid Committee took possession of the Schedule-C land. Thereafter, on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court has framed as many as 8(eight) issues:-
1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
2. Whether Md. Khursed Ali on 26.10.2007 sold the Schedule-B land to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed No.2174/2007 and thereafter, handed over possession of the same?
3. Whether the defendants on 10.05.2012 trespassed into the Schedule-B land and started construction of a thatched house on the suit land (Schedule-C) and thereby dispossessed the plaintiff?
4. Whether the suit land is a part and parc
The High Court affirmed that findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are binding unless substantial questions of law arise, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
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 court upheld the lower courts' findings, emphasizing the limited scope of re-appreciating evidence in second appeals under Section 100 CPC.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff has knowledge of unclear title issues and the vendors lack the right to convey property.
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
The first appellate court's findings of fact are final unless found to be manifestly perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.
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
