Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1145
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Lireni Kikon, W/o. Shri. N. Kikon – Appellant
Versus
Apong Pongener AO, S/o. P. Senti AO And Ors. – Respondents
SA/1 of 2020
Decided On : 01-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Appeal - Remand - Under Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code - Where the appellate court fails to consider material evidence or relies on findings without proper investigation regarding disputed land boundaries, the matter ought to be remanded for a fresh decision after obtaining a report through a court-appointed commission. (Paras 35, 36)
Facts of the case:
The litigation arose from a dispute over the alleged dual allotment of a plot of land. The trial court initially declared title in favour of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the lands in question overlapped. The appellant challenged this finding, arguing that it was reached without proper survey or demarcation of the boundaries.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that while the plaint sufficiently identified the property via survey details, the appellate court's conclusion regarding an overlap of the lands was perverse due to the absence of a survey commission report. The court emphasized that in land disputes involving identity and boundaries, reliance on oral evidence alone is insufficient.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the suit was maintainable due to descriptions in the plaint and whether the finding of factual overlapping by the appellate court was perverse in the absence of a designated survey commission report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where identity and boundaries are contested, a trial court or appellate court is obligated under procedural rules to appoint a commission to physically verify the land's location. Failure to perform this exercise when the controversy hinges on whether two plots overlap constitutes a miscarriage of justice, necessitating a remand for a fresh determination.
Result: Appeal allowed; matters remanded to the appellate court with directions to commission a survey.
For the Appellant :Mr. A.C. Sarma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G. Bharadwaj, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. V. Suokhrie, Addl. A.G. Mr. Imti Longjem, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural status, scope of appellate inquiry, and framing of substantial questions of law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. factual background of the property dispute and procedural history of the litigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. requirement of property description and court's obligation to identify disputed immovable property. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. mandatory appointment of a commission in cases involving serious disputes over land identity and boundaries. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. remand of the matter for fresh adjudication to ensure correct factual determination via survey commission. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. Mr. Imti Longjem, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. At the outset, Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the State Respondents have been incorrectly described as proforma Respondents in the Memo of Appeal inasmuch as they should have been referred to as the Main Respondents, as they contested the suit against the Appellant.
3. The present Appeal under Section 100 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2020 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland (for short, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in First Appeal No. 05/2016 whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 3 in the suit was allowed thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur (for short, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title suit No. 02/2004.
4. This Court, vide order dated 16.03.2026, reframed the substantial questions of law in accordance with Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”). The 2 (two) substantial questions of law so framed are as under:
(i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff on the ground that in a suit seeking declaration of title over a plot of land in absence of a description of the immovable property, the suit cannot be decreed?
(ii) Whether the finding of facts arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court that the land wherein Patta has been issued in favour of the Respondent No. 1 overlaps with the Patta which was issued subsequently to the Appellant is perverse?
5. The question that arises in the present proceedings is, as to whether, the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court are involved in the present Appeal.
6. To ascertain the said aspect, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present Appeal.
7. The Appellant herein claims that she purchased a plot of land from one T. Murry (since deceased), the Appellant's brother, vide an unregistered Sale Deed dated 23.11.1983, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. It is the further case of the Appellant that at the relevant point of time, no Patta system was introduced when the G.B. of Duncan Bosti allotted the land to her brother. Thereupon, she took steps for the issuance of a Patta in the year 2002 before the concerned authorities. The concerned authorities with the approval of the Government granted a Patta to the Appellant pursuant to a formal Settlement Order dated 03.05.2003. Consequently, the Jamabandi in respect to the land was corrected, and the Patta issued was numbered as Patta No. 1009 of Dag No. 1134 under Block No. 9 of Dimapur Town admeasuring 2 Kathas 16 Lechas. This aspect is apparent from a reading of Paragraph No. 12 of the plaint. It is further the case of the Appellant that she paid the land revenue for the year 2003 on 14.05.2003
