‘ *

r-

TN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AT JORHAT [APPELLA TE JURISDICTION]

Present: Sri Robin PhukanDistrict Judge, Jorhat.

JUDGMENT IN TITLE APPEAL NO. 08 OF 2015

Sri Ghana Kanta Sharma,Resident of Nehru Park, Jorhat Town, P.S. Jorhat, District - Jorhat Appellant

Versus -

1]. Assam State Housing Board,R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781005, State-Assam

2]. The Commissioner,Assam State Housing Board, R.G. Baruah Road Guwahati-781005, State-Assam

3). The Chief Administrative Officer,Assam State Housing Board, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781005, State-Assam

4). District Housing Officer,Assam State Housing Board, Nehru Park, Jorhat Town, District-Jorhat, State-Assam Respondents

5). Deity Garamur Satra,Shree Shree Garamuriya Goswami, Garamur, Majuli.

6). Shree Shree Haridev Goswami,Son of Shree Narayan Chandra Deva Goswami, Garmuria Goswami Satradhikar,Garmur Satra, Majuli. .... Proforma Respondents

APPEARANCES:

: Sri O.M. Mahesree, Senior Advocate &Smt. Sangeeta Sahewalla, Advocate, Jorhat

For the Appellant

: Shri P.Borthakur, Advocate, Jorhat &

Smt. Mayuri B. Phukan, Advocate, JorhatFor the Respondents

: 21-01-2021

: 10.03.2021Date of Hearing

Date of Judgment

■' »

2

/

f

JUDGMENT

1. Judgment & decree dated 18-08-2015 passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Jorhat, in connection with Title Suit No. 15/2003, is impugned in

this appeal by the appellant/plaintiff Shri Ghana Kanta Sharma. It is to be

mentioned here that vide impugned Judgment the Id. Civil Judge, Jorhat

dismissed the suit on contest with cost.

2. The factual background leading to the filing of this appeal is

adumbrated herein below:-

The plaintiff Sri Ghana Kanta Sharma, filed a suit bearing T.S. No.

15/2003 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other consequential

reliefs. The plaintiff's case in brief is that the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 was the

of 3 kathas of land covered by Dag No. 908, Khajana Maaf Patta No. 1 ofownersJorhat Nagar Mahal Mauza alongwith two numbers of Assam-type house standing

thereon. On 23/06/2000, the defendant Nos. 5 & 6, in need of money for the

Satra, sold the land and the houses to the plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed No.

1055 and also delivered possessions thereof. It is further case of the plaintiff that

of the Assam-typed house bearing Municipal Holding No. 197 standing over

katha of land (described more-fully in the Schedule-A & C of the plaint) were

being occupied by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as tenants under the defendant

Nos. 5 & 6 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand]. The

plaintiff informed them about the sale to attorn him as their landlord and also to

pay the rent henceforth to him which was duly accepted by the defendant Nos. 1

to 4, but, they failed to pay the same, for which, they had become defaulters and

liable to be evicted there from. Further contention of the plaintiff is that he

one

one

wererequires the Schedule-A premises for his own use and utilization. A legal notice

served upon the defendant Nos. 2 to 4, dated 03/01/2002, asking them towasvacate the Schedule-A premises, within fifteen days of receipt of notice which

was duly received by them on 05/01/2002 & 04/01/2002. The defendant No.3

addressed a letter to defendant No-4 asking him to find an alternative

district

accommodation, but when the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 failed to vacate the

Schedule-A premises; it gave rise to the cause of action for the suit. Hence, the

3

plaintiff prayed for declaration of his title with respect to Schedule-A & C

properties; recovery of khas possession of Schedule-C land, eviction of the

defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from the Schedule-A premises; recovery of arrears of

house rent amounting to Rs. 34,000/- [Rupees Thirty-four Thousand] and

recovery of compensation @ Rs. 50/- per day w.e.f. 24/04/2003, till the

defendants evicts the Schedule-A premises.

3. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4, on receipt of summons from the

learned court below, entered appearance and contested the case by filing written

statement wherein they have denied that the plaintiff is the owner of Schedule-A

house and they are his tenant. They prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

Their case is that defendant No-6 is not the owner and proprietor of the land and

he is not even eligible to sell the land belonging to defendant No-5 without prior

approval of Garamur Satra Management Committee. Further, the defendant No-6

is only the 'Shebait' of the defendant No-5, and he has got no power to sell any

land of the Satra. On the date of execution of the registered Sale Deed the

defendant No-6 had lost his right of Shebaitship for failing to do his duty and, so

he was removed from his position by the resolution passed by the Garamur Satra

Management Committee on 06/03/2001. It is further contention of the

defendants that the transaction was a Benami transaction without any valuable

consideration being passed on by the plaintiff as he did not have the financial

capacity to pay Rs. 3,63,000/- [Rupees Three Lacs & Sixty-three Thousand] to

the defendant No-6 as he was merely his personal helper [Aldhara].

4. The defendant Nos. 5 & 6 contested the suit by way of submitting

their joint written statement, wherein they have contended that they had never

sold any land or house to the plaintiff; that the defendant No-6 has got no right

to sell it to the plaintiff as it is a Debutter property and that the sale deed is

illegal as the same was obtained by the plaintiff fraudulently. Hence, they have

also prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned court below has

framed 06 [six] issues as well as 03 [three additional issues] for decision:-

• t

4

1) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form?

2) Whether the defendants are tenants in respect of the suit

premises under the plaintiff, if so, whether the defendants

defaulters in making payment of the monthly rent?

3) Whether the suit premises are bona-fide required by the

plaintiff for his own use and utilization?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 50/-

per diem w.e.f. 24/04/2003?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get khas possession and

arrears of rent as claimed?

6) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?

are

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:-

1. Whether the plaintiff has title over the land/premises?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration that

he is the owner of the land and house described fully in

Schedule-C of the plaint?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction of the

defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from the suit premises and khas

possession thereof?

6. Thereafter, the learned court below has examined 05 [five]

witnesses of the plaintiff and 03 [three] witnesses of defendant side and both the

parties exhibited several documents in support of their respective cases. Then,

after hearing learned advocates of both sides, the learned court below dismissed

the suit of the plaintiff on contest with costs.

7. Being highly aggrieved, the defendant/appellant preferred this

appeal on the grounds, amongst others:-

(i) That the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law and on facts

and circumstances of the case;

5

That the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence on

record in their proper context;

That the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 being tenants cannot

challenge the ownership of the plaintiff or his predecessor's in

interest;

That the property under reference having been sold by the

respondent No-5 & 6, the said respondent No-5 cannot challenge

the sale. The Garamur Satra Management Committee is not

legally competent to challenge the same;

That a juristic person must act through some person and in the

instant case the respondent No-6, i.e., the Satradhikar is the

person through whom the respondent No-5 acted in execution of

the Sale Deed. The Exhibit-1 is not a Sale Deed but only a

writing with regard to expression of intention to do the specified

act. It is the Exhibit-B, the Sale Deed, by which only the land and

the houses thereon were transferred by way of sale. The said

Sale Deed was executed in the name and on behalf of

respondent No-5 by respondent No-6;

That the learned court below went wrong while discussing the

contents of Exhibit-1 & Exhibit-3 in Para No-15 of its judgment;

(H)

(Hi)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

That the decisions of the learned trial court on Issue No-2 & 3 is

not sustainable because of the observation of learned trial court

that the same have become redundant in view of his findings on

Additional Issue No-1. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not

denied tenancy under Satra/Satradhikar and as such, the

appellant/plaintiff being transferee for value, the respondents

cannot deny the tenancy;

That there has been no decision with regard to the bonafide

requirement of the plaintiff/appellant of the suit premises;

That there has been no decision on Issue Nos. 4, 5 & 6 which is

unsustainable in the eye of law as well as on facts of the case;

(vii)

(viii)

(ix)

6

u -

r-

(x) That even though there is no Additional Issue No-4, as appears

in the judgment of the learned trial court has mentioned Issue

No-4. The decision on Issue No-3 is unsustainable in law;

8. We have heard Ld. Advocates of both sides and also carefully gone

through the pleadings of the parties and also gone through the documents

exhibited by each of the parties and the evidence adduced by them in support of

their respective claims.

9. Now, being the first appellate court the points for determination

(under Order XLI, R-31 of CPC) in this appeal, are:-

(i) Whether the suit property is a 'Debuttor property?

(ii) Whether the respondent No.5 & 6, being the Satradhikar had any

right to alienate 'Debuttor property' for his personal need ?

(iii) Whether the appellant has acquired any title over the 'Debuttor

property' by virtue of the Sale Deed?

(iv) Whether the respondent No. 5 and 6 are barred by the law of

limitation from challenging the validity of the Sale Deed

registered on 23.06.2000, in absence of any counter claim, that

too in the year 2013?

(v) Whether the Ld. Court below has rightly decided the issues

framed by it?(vi) Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

DECISIONS AND REASONS THEREOF:-

Points No. (i) & (ii).

10. Being inter-related these two points are taken up together for

discussion.

11.(i) Mr. P. Borthakur, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has

vehemently submitted during hearing that the suit property is a 'Debuttor

property' and its ownership is vested with 'Deity' of the Satra i.e. 'Gopal'. It is

further submitted that the suit land belongs to khazana maf patta land created in

7

T'

1887 and that 'Debuttor property' is not transferable and also cannot be sold

without taking permission from the court. It is also submitted that Debuttor

property can be managed by the Satradhikar as shebait only. Mr. Borthakur has

referred one case law- Shri Bijoy Krishna Mishra & Anr. Vs. Chittaranjan

Das Bera & Ors., 2016 SCC Online Cal 4476, in support of his submission.

11.(ii) Whereas, Mr. O.M. Mahesree, the Ld. Sr. Counsel, appearing

for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that the submission of Ld. Counsel for

the respondent is not correct and Debuttor Land is also transferable. The Ld. Sr.

Counsel has further submitted that permission of the court is not necessary to

sell Debuttor property. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 6, Shri

Haridev Goswami as Satradhikar, has sold the land to the appellant vide Exhibit-

1, in the year 1997 and his seal is also there. And he, being the ostensible owner,

has the right to sell and transfer the same to run the Satra.

12. It is apparent from the evidence of the appellant and his

witnesses, and also it is not in dispute that the appellant has claimed title over

the suit property on the strength of Exhibi-1 and Exhibit-3, the registered 'Sale

Deed'. The same were executed by Sri Haridev Goswami, the respondent No.6, in

favour of the appellant. It is also apparent from the evidence of the Lat Mandal,

who is examined as P.W.5 by the appellant/plaintiff that the suit land belongs to

10/20 Khazana Maf Patta and it stands in the name of Srijut. Garmuria Goswami.

It is also evident from the evidence of Shri Sunil Kr. Hazarika, (D.W.-l) and

respondent No. 4, and from the evidence of Shri Prafulla Kr. Bhuyan (D.W.2) that

the suit property is a 'Debuttor property' and its ownership is vested with the

'Deity' of Sri Sri Garmur Satra, who is known as 'Gopal' and the Satra is being

managed in the name of 'Deity' from ancient time i.e. from the reign of Ahom

kingdom till now. It is further apparent that Satradhikar is selected by the

Vaishnavas' and he is responsible for management anddisciples andmaintenance of the Satra but he is not the proprietor of Satra and Sri Sri Garmur

Satra is not the hereditary property of any person or organization. This piece of

evidence of D.W.l and 2 are not assailed by the appellant/plaintiff. The evidence

of these two witnesses also reveals that in T.S. Case No. 42/1955 the Munsiff

8

Court, Jorhat had pronounced one judgment that Satra property is inalienable

and cannot be transferred by sale or mortgage or lease unless appropriate legal

necessity arises. And the said legal principle was affirmed in TA No. 23/1957.

They have also testified that as the Satradhikar is not empowered to alienate

Satra property by way of sale or mortgage or lease his so called sale of the Satra

property to the appellant is void, illegal in law and he cannot claim the ownership

of the land, which belongs to 'Gopal'.

13. It is to be noted here that the 'Deity' is considered as minor in

perpetuity. Reference in this context can be made to decision of a division bench

of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Surendra Singh vs. Sagarbai, Writ

Appeal no. 1795/2018, and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saroj vs

Sunder Singh & ors, Civil appeal no. 10582 of 2013 (arising out of

slp(c)no.27949 of 2012) on 25 November, 2013. However, being a juristic

person it has a judicial status with the power of suing or being sued under the

provision of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. And immoveable property

of a minor cannot be alienated except for legal necessity after obtaining

permission of the court. Therefore, we find substance in the submission of the

Id. Counsel for the respondent that the Satradhikar of Sri Sri Garmur Satra

cannot alienated the property which belongs to 'Gopal', its 'Deity', to the

appellant without taking permission of the court. The case law, Shri Bijoy

Krishna Mishra & Anr. Vs. Chittaranjan Das Bera & Ors.(supra) referred

by him also embolden his submission. Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority And

Guardianship act, 1956; provides that the natural guardian shall not,

without the previous permission of the court (Civil Court or District Court

or Court empowered under section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,

within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property, in respect of

which the application is made, is situated. Here in this case, admittedly, no such

permission is obtained by the Satradhikar (respondent No.6) before selling the

suit property to the appellant/plaintiff.

14. It is also evident from the evidence of D.W.2 that the suit

property was sold on 22.06.2000, and when he came to know about the same he

raise protest before the Satradhikar, Sri Sri Haridev Goswami (respondent No.6),

who then admitted his ignorance about the prevalent law and usages of the Satra

9

d -

Pitambor Deva Goswami. It is elicited inas propounded by Late Satradhikar -examination of D.W.2 that Sri Sri Haridev Goswami was functioning ascross-

Satradhikar since 1985. But, he was not the Satradhikar from 1998/99, for a

period of 5 years, as he was removed from that by the management. He had

adorned in the said post again in the year 2004. This being the position, he had

authority to alienate the property of Satra at the relevant time also.no

15. We have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the

unable to record our concurrence with the same,

observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.A.appellant/plaintiff, but we are

In this context anGopalakrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors, Appeal (Civil) No.

3135 of 2007, is worth quoting. It has been held in the said case as under:-

"10. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their Trustees/Archaks/ Sebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and

Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of 'fences eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation."

Devaswom

16. In view of our above discussions and findings, and also keeping in

mind the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.A. Gopal Krishna (Supra),

while deciding point No.(i) for determination, in affirmative, point No.(ii) is

decided in negative against the appellant/plaintiff.

Point No. (iii)

is apparent from the evidence on the record that the

respondent No.6 has sold the suit property by executing Sale Deed, Exhibit-1 and

3, without any authority and without permission of the Court, and while he was

17. It

10

rnot the Satradhikar of Sri Sri Garmur Satra. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

has any legal sanctity and has conferred any title to the appellant/plaintiff.

Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the appellant/plaintiff has not acquired

any title over the suit property by virtue of the Sale Deed, Exhibits-1 and 3.

same

18. The Ld. Sr. Counsel, appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has

submitted that here in this case sale of the suit property for consideration is

established and even if the document is not validly executed by a competent

person, then also the purchaser gets protection under section 41 of Transfer of

property Act, as he purchased the land from Sri Sri Haridev Goswami, who was

the ostensible owner of the suit property. The Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon two

laws:- (i) Syed Abdul Khader vs. Rami Reddy and Others, AIR 1979

SC 553 (ii) Neelakanth and another Vs. Siddalingayya and others AIR

2004 Karnataka 258.

case

19. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for Transfer by

ostensible owner. It read as under:-

O «/>oc "Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons

interested in immoveable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such

property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be

voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorized to make it:

provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the

transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith."

UJO

r"

20. In Hardev Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 404,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the section lays down certain requirements

to avail the benefit of this section. They are:-

(i) The primary condition is that the person who is transferring the

property should be ostensible owner.

(ii) There should be consent form the real owner, which can be

implied or express form.

11

(iii) The ostensible owner should get some consideration in return

of the property.

(iv) Reasonable care has to be taken by the transferee about the

authority of transferor to the property and the transferee had

acted in good faith.

(v) It goes without saying that this section is applicable only to

transfer of immovable property and not in case of movable

property.

21. Ostensible owner is not the real owner but who can represent

himself as the real owner to the 3rd party for such dealings. He has acquired that

right by the wilful neglect or acquiesces by the real owner of the property

thereby making him an ostensible owner. The main purpose of this section is to

protect the rights of the innocent third party who had purchased the property,

when the real owner was himself at fault by not protesting the transfer. But, a

necessary requirement is that the real owner should have the capacity to give the

consent. Reference in this context can be made to decision of Hon'ble Allahabad

High Court in Sambhu Prasad v. Mahadeo Prasad, [1933] A.I.R. 493 (All),

and that consent should not be obtained from any unlawful act. In the case of

minors, even if the ostensible owner claims that he has the consent of the minor;

it will be held to be no consent as minors do not have any capacity to give the

required consent. In holding so we derived authority from a decision of Hon ble

Allahabad High Court in Abdulla Khan v Bundi, (1912) ILR 34 All 22;

Gadigeppa v Balangauda, [1931] 741 (ILR 55 Bom).

22. The consent in such transactions can be express or implied. The

ultimate test that is that the "transferee should show that he acted like a

reasonable man of business and with ordinary prudence." See- Fazal Husain vs.

Muhammad Kazim And Ors., [1934] A.I.R. 193 (All). Good faith simply

that the transferee should have honestly believed that the ostensiblemeansowner is the true owner after all the proper inquiries conducted by him.

23. The burden of proof is on the transferee to prove that the

transferor was actually the ostensible owner and had the consent to sell the

12

v

9

property. Reference here can be made to a decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High

Court in Ram v. Muktinath, [1956] A.I.R. 154 (Assam). Also he has tocare thatprove that he actually acted in good faith and had taken all reasonable

required from him while taking the property. Reference in this context can be

made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in - Gurbaksh Singh v Nikka

Singh, [1963] 1 SCR 55 (Supp).

was

24. In the paragraph No.13 of this judgment we have already

discussed and hold that owner of the suit property is 'Gopal', the Deity of Sri Sri

Garmur Satra, who is always considered a 'minor in perpetuity'. In the case of

minors, even if the ostensible owner claims that he has the consent of the minor;

it will be held to be no consent as minors do not have any capacity to give

consent. And as such the appellant cannot claim the benefits of section 41

Transfer of Property Act. Besides, he has failed to prove that he actually acted in

good faith and had taken all reasonable care that was required from him while

taking the property. Having carefully gone through the judgments referred by the

Id. Sr. Counsel we find that the ratios, laid down there in, would not be helpful to

the appellant/plaintiff, in view of our above discussion and finding.

&Oo

m? is.'OV ***/£)/ \'>ys*— /

25. Accordingly, point No. (iii) has to decided in negative and

accordingly it is decided in negative.

Point No. fiv]

26. This point was- whether the respondent No. 5 and 6 are barred

by the law of limitation from challenging the validity of the Sale Deed registered

on 23.06.2000, in absence of any counter claim, that too in the year 2013.

27. Mr. P. Borthakur, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has

submitted that the limitation starts from the date of knowledge. It is further

submitted that when the respondent No.6 has received summon from the court

in this suit, he immediately filed written statement, and as such the respondent

No. 6 is not barred by the law of limitation in challenging the validity of the sale

deed.

13

r28. On the other hand, the Id. Sr. Counsel appearing for the

appellant has submitted that O.P. No. 5 and 6 made no counter claim here in this

and the D.W.2, who was the Attorney of respondent No.5 and 6, came tocaseknow about the sale of Satra property in the year 2001, and as such the 'sale

deed' should have been challenged in the year 2003. But, he did so in the year

which, according to the Ld. Counsel is clearly barred by the law of2013,limitation and they have no remedy here in this case.

29. It is a fact that here in this case no counter claim is filed by the

respondent No. 5 and 6. And, admittedly respondent No.6 never appeared in

witness box though he has submitted his evidence-in-affidavit, which was

expunged subsequently. Apparently, there is some force in the submission of the

Ld. Sr. Counsel. The written statement, challenging the validity of the Sale Deed

was filed on 28.05.2013. But, it was elicited in cross-examination of D.W.2 that

he was appointed as Attorney of the Sri Sri Garmur Satra in the year 2003 by the

Satra Management Committee, and the same was cancelled in the year 2004 and

that he came to know about sale of the suit property in the year 2001. Thus, it

becomes clear that at the time of knowing about the sale of the suit property he

was not the attorney of Sri Sri Garmur Satra. This being the position, his

knowledge, to our considered opinion, cannot be treated as knowledge of the

principal. We therefore, find the submission of Ld. Sr. Counsel is devoid of any

force.

30. On the other hand it appears that summon was served upon

respondent No.5 and 6 on 22.07.2009. The proceeding was stayed by Hon'ble

Gauhati High Court on 08.09.2009, in CRP No. 302/2009. Order of disposal of the

said CRP was by Hon'ble High Court was received by the Ld. Court below on

22.03.2013. Thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff has filed amended Plaint. And,

28.03.2013, respondent No.5 and 6 has submitted writtenthereafter, onstatement challenging execution of Exhibit- 1 and 3. Being so, the Ld. Counsel for

the respondents is perfectly right in his submission that the bar of limitation is

not applicable here in this case and we adopt the same.

14

rPoint No.(v^

31. It has been mentioned in paragraph No.5 of this judgment that

the learned court below has framed 06 [six] issues as well as 03 [three additional

issues]. And it appears that the Id. Court below has first decided Additional Issue

No.l, which the Ld. Court below has found to be of paramount importance. The

issue was whether the plaintiff has title over the land/premises.

32. The Ld. court below, after a threadbare discussion, has held that

the suit properties are not the self acquired property of the respondent No.6 and

it belongs to 'Gopal' the presiding 'Deity' of Sri Sri Garmur Satra. It was a

free estate, and Shri Garmuria Goswami is shown as Pattadar No.l from

Copy of Jamabandi-Exhibit-2, which proves that the land belongs to

defendant No.5, otherwise the name of Sri Haridev Goswami would have been

mutated. Thereafter, the Ld. Court below held that the suit property is not

personal property of Shri Haridev Goswami. He steps into the shows of Shrijut

Garmuria Goswami by virtue of being the Satradhikar. Thereafter, the Ld. Court

below held that Exhibit- 1 and 3, nowhere proves that defendant No.6 got the

right, title and interest over the properties mentioned in any of the documents

and thereafter, it has held that the appellant/plaintiff has acquired no right title

and interest over the suit properties.

revenue

the

33. In view of our discussion and finding on point No.(iii) for

determination which has been discussed in paragraph No.17, it cannot be said

that the finding, so arrived at by the Ld. Court below is erroneous, requiring any

interference of this court. It is based on materials available on the record.

34. The Ld. Court below has decided Issue No.2 i.e. whether the

defendants are tenants in respect of the suit premises under the plaintiff, if so,

whether the defendants are defaulters in making payment of the monthly rent

and whether the suit premises are bona-fide required by the plaintiff for his own

use and utilization, in negative and in favour of the defendant/respondent.

35. The Ld. Court below found and held that there is no dispute that

defendants No.l to 4 have not paid any rent, what so ever, to the plaintiff, but

15

fthere is no evidence to show that the defendants have taken the scheduled 'A'

from defendant No. 6 in his personal capacity nor that they had paid the

requisite rent to him in personal capacity. There is also no proof that defendants

No.l to 4 have attorned the appellant/plaintiff to be their land lord. And since

there is no relationship of land lord and tenants the question of paying rent does

not arise, held the Id. Court below.

36. In view of our discussion and decision on point No.(iii), and in

view of the facts and circumstances on the record we find and hold that the Ld.

Court below has rightly decided these two issues in negative.

37. The Ld. Court below while deciding Issue No.l has found that

there is nothing adverse so as hold that the suit is not maintainable, and

accordingly answered it in affirmative. The Ld. Court below also decided

Additional Issue No. 3 and 4 and Issue No.4, 5 and 6 in negative and against the

appellant/plaintiff, and thereafter dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff with

cost.

rooms

38. Having examined the findings of the Ld. Court below on these

points in the light of facts and circumstance on the record we find that Additional

Issue No. 1 is the centre of gravity of the suit before the Ld. Court below. When

the main issue, which determines the fate of the suit, is decided in negative

against the appellant/plaintiff, discussion on other issues becomes more or less

academic. And, as such skipping detailed discussion thereof caused no prejudice

to any of the party to the proceeding. Notwithstanding, the Ld. Court below has

recorded a clear finding on all the issues as mandated by law. The Ld. Sr.

Counsel appearing for the appellantyplaintiff has submitted that discussion of the

Ld. Court below on Issue No.2 and 3 are perfunctory and that there is no specific

finding.

39. We have considered the submission in the light of fact and

circumstances on the record and we find that the Ld. Court below has recorded

specific finding in respect of both the Issues in paragraph No. 30 of its judgments

and answered both the issues in negative against the appellant/plaintiff. The Ld.

Court below has specifically held that there is no relationship of landlord and

the question of paying rent to the plaintiff does not arise and,tenant

16

f*

consequently, the suit premises cannot be also required bonafide by the plaintiff.

We find that when the appellant/plaintiff has acquired no right, title, and interest

over the suit property he cannot be the land lord of the suit property. Moreover,

there is no evidence that the respondents' No. 1 to 4 have acknowledged/

attorned the appellant/plaintiff as their land lord. This being the position, it

cannot be said that the Id. Court below has committed any mistake by not

discussing the same in details in its judgment. We have already found and hold

that the Id. Court below has recorded it's finding on all the issues.

40. In view of our discussions and finding on all the points, frammed

for discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands

dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the Ld. Court below stands

affirmed. Send down the record of the Ld. Court below with a copy of this

judgment and order. Prepare a decree accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 10th day of

March, 2021.