The absence of formally framed points for determination in appellate judgements does not invalidate a judgment if substantial compliance and consideration of relevant issues are evident.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. N. C. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This is an Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.6/2017 (earlier numbered as Title Appeal No.10/2010) by the Court of the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned First Appellate Court’) whereby the Appeal so filed by the appellant was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Trial Court’) in Title Suit No.39/2007.

3. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that the instant Appeal is in respect to the dismissal of the suit and not the decreeing of the counterclaim. In so far as decreeing of the counterclaim, a separate proceedings under Section 115 of the Code has been filed which is presently pending before this Court.

4. The question which arises before this Court as to whether the questions of law so proposed in the instant Appeal can be formulated in terms of Section 100 (4) of the Code so that the instant Appeal can be proceeded with.

5. Mr. N. C. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant proposed two questions of law which can be framed as substantial questions of law in terms with Section 100 (4) of the Code. The said questions so proposed are as under:-

(i) That the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on the face of it are perverse being not based on evidence on record both oral and documentary?

(ii) That the learned First Appellate Court below has totally failed to decide the issues framed in the suit by discussing the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary by formulating points for determination which violates the mandate of law as provided under Order 41 Rule 30 and 31 of the CPC?

6. The question which arises before this Court is as to whether the questions of law so proposed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant can at all be formulated as substantial questions of law in the present Appeal. It is noteworthy to take note of that the instant Appeal is being taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code.

7. For the purpose of deciding the aspect as to whether the two questions of law so proposed can be formulated as substantial questions of law, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant Appeal.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they were before the learned Trial Court. 9. The appellant herein as plaintiff had filed a suit being Title Suit No.9/2006 seeking specific performance of an oral Agreement for Sale entered into in the month of May, 1998 between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 for sale of a plot of land admeasuring 30 ft X 52 ft = 1560 sq. ft. equivalent to 10.8 lechas under Dag No.60 covered by Periodic Patta No.10 of Chiring Gaon Ward, Dibrugarh Town Mouza which has been most specifically described in the Schedule to the plaint. It was stated in the plaint that the oral agreement agreed to was that the plaintiff would have to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant No.1 as a consideration for sale of the said land and out of that, on 01.05.