A License does not confer inheritable rights, and ownership claims must be substantiated by registered documents.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - Two substantial questions of law were formulated in this Second Appeal viz.;

(i) Whether the Learned First Appellate Court can ignore Exhibit 3, the Map, wherein the Suit premises is depicted as being below the road while the Appellant claims to be in possession of property above the road?

(ii) Whether the findings of the Learned First Appellate Court is perverse?

2.(i) The Respondent herein, the Plaintiff before the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, Chungthang, North Sikkim, claimed Ownership and Recovery of Possession from the Appellant of one Ekra residential quarters measuring 34 feet x 38 feet with GCI roofing, situated at 6th Mile, Tadong, East Sikkim, described in the Schedule to the Plaint, butted and bounded as follows;

East: Land of Kumari Chimi Pendam

West: Land of D.B. Rai

North: National Highway

South: Land of D.B. Rai

(ii) The case of the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter “Respondent”) briefly is that the mother of the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter “Appellant”), Late Martha Rai had been employed as a Caretaker for the upkeep and maintenance of the Old Office of the Respondent. To faciliate this, she had been allowed to reside in the Scheduled premises specifying clearly that the Respondent would terminate the Licence as and when the situation demanded. By a Communication dated 28.03.2013, the Respondent requested Martha Rai to vacate the Suit premises to enable them to rent it out. She sought three weeks time to vacate the premises but failed to do so. After the death of Martha Rai on 17.09.2016, the Appellant and her husband continued residing in the premises, sans sanction by the Respondent. Besides, they are reportedly involved in a criminal case under the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006, which is unbecoming for the image of the Respondent. On 21.03.2017, a Legal Notice was issued to the Appellant requiring her to hand over vacant possession of the Suit premises to the Respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the Notice, in vain. Hence, the Suit.

(iii) The Appellant’s Written Statement denied and disputed the claims of the Respondent and instead asserted that one Nima Lama, resident of Tathangchen, Gangtok, East Sikkim had authorized, her father one R.B. Chettri, to dwell on the said Suit premises which had been occupied by the Appellant and her family for more than thirty years. After the Appellant’s father went missing, Nima Lama executed a hand written document confirming that he had no objection in allowing the Appellant’s mother to reside in the Suit premises.

(iv) The Learned Trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties, framed five Issues for determination and after considering all relevant material and evidence on record, dismissed the Suit of the Respondent.

(v) While deciding Issue “a. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property?” the Learned Trial Court examined the eleven documents relied on by the Respondent and concluded that Exhibits 9, 10 and 11 remained unproved on account of non-production of the Issuing Authority as Witnesses. That, the correctness of Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were not proved by P.Ws. 2 and 3 as Exhibit 1 had several corrections, alterations and attestations. It was concluded that the Respondent is not the absolute and exclusive owner of the Suit property.

(vi) While deciding Issue “b. Whether the suit premises is under occupation and possession of the defendant for more than 30 years and has any authority on it or not?” the Learned Trial Court observed that P.W.1 himself has admitted that the Appellant and her family had been residing in the Suit property for more t