Jharkhand High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Smt. Saroja Devi & Ors on 7 August, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 391 of 2016
Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... ... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Saroja Devi & Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate
: Mr. Anish Kamal, Advocate
: Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
: Mrs. Sonam, Advocate
: Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, Advocate
---
16/07.08.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated
23.04.2019 wherein following two substantial questions of law were
framed:
i. Whether notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is a valid
notice in the eyes of law?
ii. Whether finding of the Appellate Court is perverse?
3. Subsequently, two additional substantial questions of law were
framed vide order dated 24.04.2023, which are as under:
(i) Whether the learned first appellate court erred by not
drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff for not entering
the witness box though the fact of the suit revolves round the
meeting in which the terms and condition of the lease was
settled down by the plaintiff and the defendant on 25.11.1996?
(ii) Whether the learned first appellate court committed a
perversity by not treating Ext. C to be a written agreement for
the purpose of Section 53 A of Transfer to Property Act
between the parties to the suit in respect of the lease of the suit
property?
4. By referring to the 1st substantial question of law framed vide
order dated 23.04.2019 and upon a query by this Court in relation to
the said substantial question of law as to which document from the
record is referred as the purported notice under section 106 of
Transfer of Property Act, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 who
appears for the plaintiff has submitted that at best the notice under
section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is referrable to exhibit- 1/1
dated 19.02.2000 which was a notice issued after the disposal of the
writ petition and prior to filing of the suit.
5. However, he submits that at no point of time, it was the case of
the plaintiff that a notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property
Act was ever issued in view of the fact that the plaintiff never claimed
that the defendant was put in possession by virtue of any lease or there
was any tenancy between the parties. He has also placed the exhibit-
1/1 fully and has submitted that the tenor of the exhibit - 1/1 also
discloses that the relationship of landlord and tenant is completely
denied and it is not the case of the plaintiff that there ever existed any
relationship of landlord and tenant nor there is any lease. Learned
counsel for the respondent no. 1 has also submitted that the learned 1 st
appellate court has given a clear finding that there was no relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 submits that therefore no such question of law was
ever framed by the learned 1st appellate court or the learned trial court.
He submits that this substantial question of law actually does not arise
for consideration under the facts and circumstances of this case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that no issue
or point of determination was framed by the learned trial court or by
the learned 1st appellate court with regard to notice under section 106
of Transfer of Property Act. He has also not been able to show any
other document except exhibit- 1/1 which could at best be referrable to
notice section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
prayer of the plaintiff was contradictory and plaintiff had also claimed
that if there is any tenancy then on account of default, the defendant
should be evicted. However, on perusal of the exhibit- 1/1, he also
could not substantiate that the same can be said to be a notice under
section 106 of Transfer of Property Act as by that document, the
plaintiff denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He submits
that under such circumstances 1st substantial question of law framed
vide order dated 23.04.2019 may not be answered as it does not arise
for consideration by this Court.
8. This Court is of the considered view that answer to 1st
substantial question of law framed vide order dated 23.04.2019 will
ultimately depend upon the finding of this Court, if any, in connection
with relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
particularly in view of 2nd substantial question of law which has been
broadly framed in the manner as to whether finding of the appellate
court is perverse.
9. Arguments of the learned counsels for the parties on other
substantial questions of law have been heard at length and concluded.
10. Judgment is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/Mukul
