Jatindra Biswas vs Smti Sonali Sangma

Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010005622017

2026:GAU-AS:12735
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/15/2018
JATINDRA BISWAS
R/O VILL. KARIKHANA BILGAON, MOUZA LANKA
2: KOKILA BISWAS
D/O LATE BARINDRA BISWAS
BOTH ARE R/O VILL. KARIKHANA BILGAON
MOUZA LANKA
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
VERSUS
SMTI SONALI SANGMA
R/O VILL. KARIKHANA BILGAON, MOUZA LANKA,
2:SUSHANKA MARAK
R/O VILL. KARIKHANA BILGAON
MOUZA LANKA
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN
3:SUDHANDSHU MARAK
R/O ILL. KARIKHANA BILGAON
MOUZA-LANKA
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A ALAM,MR. M ALAMGEER,MR.
R ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A ROSHID, MR N BRAHMA (R-2,3),MR B DEORI (R-
2,3),MR G BHARADWAJ (R-2,3),MR. A C SARMA (R-2,3),MS. M R DEVI,MS. T BEGUM,MR. A

Page No.# 2/4
ROSHID

:: BEFORE ::
(HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA)

Advocate(s) for the Appellants : Mr. M. Alamgeer.
Advocate(s) for the Respondents : Mr. A.C. Sarma, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. G. Bharadwaj.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 25.08.2026.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.09.2026.
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : YES.
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : YES.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
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.

2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The aforesaid land was owned by Surendra Sangma. He expired in the year 1976 leaving behind
the respondents as his legal heirs.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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

Page No.# 3/4
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.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:
i. Whether the suit is maintainable?
ii. Whether there is any cause of action?
iii. Whether the suit is hit by Article 65 and Section 27 of the Limitation Act?
iv. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
v. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land?
vi. Whether the defendant no.1, 3 and 4 have perfected their title on the suit land by adverse
possession?
vii. Whether the defendant no.2 is a licencee under the plaintiff no.1?
viii. To what relief the parties are entitled to?
9. The trial court also framed two additional issues which read as under:
“xi. 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?
x. Whether the suit land falls within the area of tribal belt and block?”
10. 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.
11. 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?”
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.
13. 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.
14. 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

Page No.# 4/4
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.”

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant