AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. M. Alamgeer, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel representing the respondents.
This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the judgment dated 30.08.2017 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No.06/2014 affirming the judgment dated 01.11.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in Title Suit No.05/2004.
The suit filed by the respondents involve a plot of land measuring 8 Bighas 17 Lechas covered by Periodic Patta No.45 of Karikhana Bilgaon Kissamat under Lanka Mouza in the district of Nagaon, Assam. This land is surrounded by distinct four boundaries.
The aforesaid land was owned by Surendra Sangma. He expired in the year 1976 leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs.
The respondents allowed the appellants to stay over the suit land and asked them to look after the said land. In the meantime, some of the appellants also died.
On 02.12.2003, the respondents asked the appellants to vacate the suit land and the same was not done. Therefore, the respondents filed the suit praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the said land and for recovery of vacant possession of the land.
The appellants contested the case by filing a written statement. They denied that the predecessor of the respondent, namely- Surendra Sangma was the owner of the suit land. They have claimed that they had cleared the jungle on their own and made the land cultivable. They have admitted that Surendra Sangma was in possession of the land covered by Dag No.6 only.
On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:
Whether the suit is maintainable?
Whether there is any cause of action?
Whether the suit is hit by Article 65 and Section 27 of the Limitation Act?
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land?
Whether the defendant no.1, 3 and 4 have perfected their title on the suit land by adverse possession?
Whether the defendant no.2 is a licencee under the plaintiff no.1?
To what relief the parties are entitled to?
The trial court also framed two additional issues which read as under:
Whether Debendra Biswas, predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.1 and 1(a) and Barindra Biswas, the father/predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.4 was inducted as licencee/permissive possessor upon the suit land by the plaintiff no.1 in the year 1981?
Whether the suit land falls within the area of tribal belt and block?”
During the trial, both sides examined witnesses as well as their respective documents. The trial court decreed the suit of the respondents. The appellate court also affirmed the said judgment.
This instant second appeal was admitted for hearing upon the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the findings of the Courts below holding that the defendant/appellants are not entitled to hold land in the tribal belt and block without giving finding as to whether the defendants were within the reserved category or not, was perverse?”
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.
The respondents herein had admitted before the trial court that the suit land falls within tribal belt. The respondents examined one Dinesh Ch. Nath (Lat Mandal) and a certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Lanka (Ext.3) to prove that the suit land falls within tribal belt area and the respondents belong to “Garo” community.
In paragraph 14 of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
14.A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be “substantial” a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law “involving in the case” there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.
The substantial question is law as to whether findings of the courts below holding that the present appellants are not entitled to hold land in tribal belt and block without giving a finding as to whether the present appellants were within the reserved category are questions of fact. It is proved in a trial court that the suit land falls within tribal belt and the present respondents belong to “Garo” community, which is already notified as a Scheduled Tribe.
Being the second appellate court, High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal does not involve any debatable questions. Rather, it contains some factual issues which are already answered by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. Pure findings of fact remain immune from challenge before the High Court in second appeal.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal is without any merit and stands dismissed accordingly.
Send back the TCR.