IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the defendant failed to prove joint ownership, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. D.K. Bagchi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This is an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 passed in Title Appeal No. 06/2018 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as, “the First Appellate Court”), had dismissed the Appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2018 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 145/2012.

3. The instant appeal is taken up at the stage of Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to adjudicate as to whether any substantive question of law can be formulated in the instant appeal. To ascertain the said aspect of the matter, this Court has duly taken note of the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below.

4. From the materials on record, including the plaint and the written statement filed to the memo of appeal, it appears that the plaintiff had filed the suit being Title Suit No. 145/2012 before the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh. In the said suit, the plaintiff claimed that he is the absolute owner of a plot of land admeasuring 0-Bigha-0-Katha-15.6 Lechas covered by Dag No. 455 (Ga) of Periodic Patta No. 254 situated at New Amolapatty Ward, under Dibrugarh Town Mouza in the District of Dibrugarh, Assam and he acquired right, title and interest over the said land by virtue of purchase and thereafter he duly mutated his name in the record of rights. The plaintiff further averred that he had purchased the land along with the house bearing Municipal Holding No. 232 of Ward No. 12, and thereafter he had reconstructed the said house as per his business requirement and was granted fresh Holding No. 719 in his name. The plaintiff further stated in his plaint that after reconstruction, the plaintiff started a hotel business therein. Taking note of that the defendant being an unemployed younger brother, the plaintiff kept the defendant as his assistant in the said hotel and he also used to send the defendant to pay the electricity and gas bill of the hotel. Subsequently, the defendant on his own hanged a sign board as “Sankar Hotel” in front of the hotel and also started a pan shop in front of the said hotel. The plaintiff asked the defendant not to do it, which the defendant did not listen. In addition to that, the defendant also stopped to furnish the accounts of the plaintiff's hotel to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that on 01.01.2005, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to run the hotel and thereafter on each and every first day of January extended his permission for running the hotel on a condition that the defendant would quit and vacate the premises as and when required by the plaintiff. It was also mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiff with intention to construct a two storied residential house on the said land after demolishing the present suit premises for his business purpose expressed his intention to the defendant with a request to vacate the hotel immediately within one month. Since the defendant did not vacate on one pretext or the other, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit seeking, declaration that the plaintiff has right, title, interest and lawful possession of the suit premises standing on his own land; for a declaration that the defendant has no right, title and interest or lawful possession over the suit premises as described in the schedule and therefore is liable to be ousted or evicted from the suit premises after vacation and demolition of the pucca Pan Dala in front of the suit premises under his occupation; for recovery of khas possession or any other relief the defendant contest.

5. The defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement wherein he had raised various objections to the m