Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Kaliram Regon – Petitioner
Versus
Anima Taying W/o Late Talom Tayeying – Respondent
RFA No. 1 of 2016
Decided On : 25-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: S. Taye, B. Baruah, T.T. Tara, Jumgam Jini, Gamken Bam, Terji Kamchi, Khoda Apa.
For the Respondents: Vijay Jamoh, Tony Pertin, Kamal Saxena, Rinchin Ledo Thungon, U. Bori, H.K. Jamoh, Mingkong Pertin, Dicky Panging, Duge Soki, D. Tamuk, Elina Perme, M. Doji, K. Perme, M. Tamut, M. Gibi, H. Kadu.
IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of documentary evidence undermines ownership claims, while valid sale deeds establish rightful ownership.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Title Suit - Appeal against judgment and decree dated 07.12.2015 - The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for land ownership based on valid sale deeds dated 29.07.1984 and 23.06.1986 - The appellant's claims of prior ownership were unsupported by documentary evidence - The court found no procedural errors in the trial court's handling of the case. (Paras 1, 12, 49, 56)
(B) Evidence - The court emphasized the necessity of documentary proof for ownership claims - The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of ownership over the disputed land. (Paras 49, 56)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff's father-in-law purchased land in 1984 and 1986, while the appellant claimed to have purchased the same land in 1975 without documentation. Disputes arose leading to multiple Kebang decisions, ultimately resulting in the plaintiff's suit. (Paras 3-5, 10)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the plaintiff's sale deeds valid and the appellant's claims unsubstantiated, affirming the plaintiff's ownership. (Paras 56-58)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the sale deeds and the appellant's claims of ownership. (Paras 12, 56)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of documentary evidence from the appellant undermined his claims, while the plaintiff's evidence was deemed credible and sufficient. (Paras 49, 56)
Result: Appeal dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment. (Paras 59)
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appeared for the respondent No. 2.
2. This first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, 1908 read with Order XLI of CPC, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2015, passed by Additional District Judge, Pasighat, in PSG Title Suit No. 07/2012, by which, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has been allowed and decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1.
3. The father-in-law (since deceased) of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has initially filed Title suit on 07.05.1993 for declaration of title, ownership and interest in favour of the plaintiff of the land measuring 1(one) pura and 30 feet situated at village Tigra (Mirmir), Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, bounded by in the East- Land of the Tani Ering; in the West-Main Road; in the North- Land of Shri Kaliram Regon (appellant herein) and in the South- Road.
4. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the father-in-law of the plaintiff Lt. Tasing Taying on dated 29.07.1984 purchased a plot of land measuring 1(one) pura situated at Tigra (Mirmir) Pasighat at the consideration of Rs. 6000/- from the defendant No. 1, Sri Opak Rome (since deceased). And subsequently the father-in-law of the plaintiff again on dated 23.06.1986 purchased another 30 feet of land adjacent to previously purchased land at the consideration of Rs. 1000/-.
5. The case of the appellant/defendant No-2 is that sometime in the year 1975 he purchased the present suit land from his deceased father-in-law Lt. Kodang Rome at the consideration of Rs. 500/- but on good faith he did not execute any sale deed and same was later on acknowledged by the sons of Lt. Kodang Rome namely- Sri Opak Rome, Sri Oni Rome and Sri Oyi Rome. The appellant/defendant No. 2 further stated that while the defendant No. 1 was staying in the same land, his wife Lt. Yarak Rome died in the year 1977. Since the year 1978, the appellant/defendant No. 2, who was serving in Fishery Department Govt. of A.P was transferred and posted out to various places like Mariyang, Yingkiong and Ziro and therefore he spent thirteen years of his service life in those posting places. The appellant/Defendant No. 2 further stated that in those period of thirteen years from 1978-1991, the defendant No. 1 Sri Opak Rome (since deceased) who happens to be his brother-in-law illegally sold out the present disputed land to the plaintiff’s father-in-Law Late Tasing Taying and the appellant/defendant No. 2 having come to know about the sale transaction lodged the complaint on 30.10.1991 before the Deputy commissioner Pasighat. Accordingly, Kebang was held on two occasions on dated 19.12.1991 and 23.05.1992 wherein the Kebang authorities decided the matter in favor of Appellant/defendant No. 2- Shri Kaliram Regon -holding that the defendant No. 1 Sri Opak Rome Son of Late Kodang Rome had no right to sale the suit land. The said Kebang Decision dated 23.05.1992 was confirmed by the learned Deputy Commissioner on dated 04.02.1993. Therefore, claims that since Kebang has already decided the title of the disputed land in his favour which has attained its finality and no adjudication remains to be made by the court.
6. On the complaint by the appellant/ defendant No. 2, two Kebangs were conducted on dated 19.12.1991 and dated 23.05.1992. The Kebang authorities having found the sale transactions made in between the Defendant No. 1 Sri Opak Rome and plaintiff late Tasing Taying illegal and decided the title of the disputed land in favour appellant/defendant No. 2.
7. Being aggrieved of the said Kebang decisions, the plaintiff Tasing Taying (since deceased) filed a fresh suit before the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang, Pasighat for declaration of title over his purchased land, however he was later on substituted by his son Dr. Talom Taying (since deceased) and amended the plaint wherein the present appella
