An appellate judgment is not vitiated by the failure to frame formal points for determination if the decision reflects substantial compliance through thorough analysis of evidence. Additionally, civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate private title disputes over land partially acquired, provided the acquisition process remains unchallenged.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

[1] Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as Mr. K.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 6. Also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

[2] This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellants/defendant No. 1 impugning the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2014, passed by the court of the learned District Judge, Morigaon in Title Appeal No. 02/2013, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2013, passed by the trial court, i.e. the court of the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon in Title Suit No. 07/2009 was upheld.

[3] The brief facts relevant for consideration of the instant second appeal are that the respondent No. 1 Rajia Begum, as plaintiff, had filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, recovery of arrear rent and eviction of the defendant No. 1 (present appellant) and recovery of compensation in respect of the land acquired by the State respondent, before the court of the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 07/2009. The present appellants as well as other defendants appeared before the trial court and filed their written statement. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:-

i. “Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

ii. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

iii. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

iv. Whether the defendant No.1 is tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises?

v. Whether the defendant is to pay Rs. 12,000/-being the rent of Rs. 500/- per month from 30.8.07 to 31.8.09 to the plaintiff and whether the defendant is liable to evicted therefrom?

vi. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?

vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 28,500/- as compensation and Rs. 1,74,290/- for the pucca house on the suit land from the defendant No. 4?

viii. Whether the defendant is entitled to counter claim made in respect of suit land?

ix. To what relief(s) the parties are entitled to?

[4] In support of her case the plaintiff (present respondent No. 1) examined 3(three) witnesses, including herself, however, as two of the witnesses apart from the plaintiff herself expired before they could be cross-examined, their evidence was expunged.

[5] On the other hand, the defendant’s side did not examine anyone. It is pertinent to mention herein that in the aforesaid case, the present appellants (defendant No. 1) also filed a counter-claim along with her written statement claiming the declaration of her right, title and interest over scheduled-A land and also for a decree of confirmation of her possession over the said land. Apart from that the defendant No. 1 also claimed compensation for acquisition of the land and for the standing houses over the acquired land as well as for permanent injunction.

[6] The trial court, by its judgment dated 7^th May, 2013, decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting the relief claimed by the plaintiff in her plaint except the relief of recovery of arrear rent. The trial court though, while deciding issue No. 8, had observed that the defendant No. 1 failed to adduce any evidence in support of her pleading made in the counter-claim, however, nothing was ment