Gauhati High Court
Renu Bhuyan vs Ananda Saikia And Anr on 29 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010003432013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/10/2013
RENU BHUYAN
W/O- LATE MUKUL BHUYAN, R/O- POTIAGAON, PO and MOUZA- HEZARI,
DIST- JORHAT, PIN-785001
VERSUS
ANANDA SAIKIA and ANR
S/O- LATE SONARAM SAIKIA, R/O-LAKHIMIKHAT,PO- KARAKA TOLI,
DIST- JORHAT, PIN- 785108, ASSAM
2:NIRAMOY SAIKIA
S/O- LATE SONARAM SAIKIA
R/O-LAKHIMIKHAT
PO- KARAKA TOLI
DIST- JORHAT
PIN- 785108
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S DUTTA
:: PRESENT ::
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Appellant : Mr. R.K. Bhuyan,
Advocate.
Page No.# 2/6
For the Respondents : Mr. B.D. Das,
Senior Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2023.
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2023.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
as well as Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel representing the
respondents.
2. This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) whereby the judgment dated 13.06.2011 passed
by the court of learned Munsiff No.2, Jorhat was reversed by the
judgment dated 10.09.2012 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge,
Jorhat in Title Appeal No.16/2011.
3. Smti. Bogi Saikia gifted 1 Katha of land to her daughter/the
appellant by a registered deed. In the year 1988, the appellant got
herself mutated in the records of rights in respect of the said land.
4. The aforesaid land has two shop rooms rent out to the two
respondents on monthly rent w.e.f. 01.03.1986. Subsequently, they
defaulted in payment of rent. Therefore, the appellant issued a notice to
them asking them to vacate the shop rooms.
5. In reply to the aforesaid notice, the respondents told her that the
said land was purchased by their father Sonaram Saikia from Lakheswar
Saikia in the year 1966 by execution of a registered sale deed. Lakheswar
Saikia is the father of the present appellant.
Page No.# 3/6
6. Ultimately, the appellant filed the suit praying for the eviction of the
respondents and for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property.
7. The fact that Smti. Bogi Saikia gifted the property to the appellant by
execution of a registered sale deed, is not denied by the respondents
while filing their written statement. They chose to stick to their plea that in
the year 1966, Lakheswar Saikia, the father of the appellant had sold the
land to their father Sonaram Saikia.
8. The learned trial court framed the following issues:
I. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit
land?
II. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
III. Whether the suit is undervalued and not properly stamped?
IV. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
V. Whether the defendants are tenants under the plaintiff?
VI. Whether the defendants are defaulters?
VII. Whether the suit land/premises are required by the plaintiff for
bona fide purpose?
VIII. Whether the sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiff in
favour of the father of the defendants has no value in the eye of law
and therefore, the same is liable to be cancelled?
IX. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?
9. During the trial of the case, the appellant and the respondents
examined two witnesses each.
Page No.# 4/6
10. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the
suit.
11. On appeal, the first appellate court reversed the finding and
dismissed the suit.
12. The substantial questions of law on which the appeal is admitted are
-
i. Whether the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act can be
applied in respect of Exhibit-2, the Registered Gift Deed dated
22.08.1974, which was admittedly a 30 year document and execution of
which was not challenged by the executor?
ii. Whether the learned lower appellate court has rightly decided
the title of the suit property in favour of the respondents on the basis of
the sale deed (Exhibit-A) (Exhibit-KA) allegedly executed by Lt.
Lakheswar Saikia who was not the owner/title holder of property in
question?
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of
both sides.
14. Lt. Bogi Saikia gifted 1 Katha of land to the appellant on execution
of a registered gift deed. This plea has not been denied by the
respondents in their written statement. Order 8 Rule 5 of the CPC,
prescribes that every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied
specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in
the pleadings of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except
against a person under disability. Similarly, the law of evidence under
Page No.# 5/6
Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that admitted facts
need not be proved.
15. So, it is proved that Smti. Bogi Saikia had gifted 1 Katha of land to
the appellant on execution of a Registered Gift Deed.
16. The learned trial court held that the respondents failed to prove the
title of Lakheswar Saikia over the suit land, which empowered him to sale
the same to their father Sonaram Saikia. The trial court held that the
simple sale deed does not have a legal value if the vendor did not have
right, title and interest over the property sold. I find that the trial court has
correctly appreciated the evidence as well as the law.
17. After going through the judgment of the first appellate court, I find
that the appellate judgment is based on some imaginary laws, which do
not exist at all.
18. I have already mentioned hereinbefore that the Registered Gift
Deed i.e. the Exhibit-2 is already proved and therefore, there is no need
of proving the Gift Deed by examination of attesting witnesses. The
respondents have failed to prove the title of Lakheswar Saikia over the
suit property. Therefore, the Sale Deed i.e. Exhibit-A has no value in the
eye of law. The learned first appellate court erroneously set aside the
judgment of the learned trial court.
19. The first appellate court judgment dated 10.09.2012 passed by the
court of learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No.16/2011, is set
aside.
20. In the result, the second appeal is allowed.
Page No.# 6/6
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
