Gauhati HC Upholds Dismissal Of Buyer’s Tenancy Claim, Finding No Proof Seller Was Adopted By Claimed Tenant

In brief

The question

Whether Plaintiff No. 1 inherited tenancy rights in the suit land from Jaladhar Roy, including on the basis that he was adopted by Jaladhar.

The court held

The Court held that neither substantial question warranted interference: the claimed inheritance through adoption was unsupported by the record, and the finding challenged by reference to DW-3 was not shown to be perverse.

It also directed

The second appeal was dismissed, with the parties bearing their own costs.

01Facts

The plaintiffs claimed that Jaladhar Roy held occupancy-tenancy rights over the suit land, that Plaintiff No. 1, Nirod Roy, was Jaladhar’s nephew and had been brought up by him, and that Plaintiff No. 1 transferred the jote rights to Plaintiff No. 2, Ram Kumar Roy.

pp. 3–8

The defendants disputed the plaintiffs’ rights. After remand and a fresh trial, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that Plaintiff No. 1 had not proved either the tenancy or his relationship to, or adoption by, Jaladhar Roy. The First Appellate Court affirmed. Ram Kumar Roy appealed under Section 100 CPC; after his death, his legal heirs pursued the appeal.

pp. 3–8

02Issues

i.Whether Plaintiff No. 1 inherited tenancy rights in the suit land from Jaladhar Roy, including on the basis that he was adopted by Jaladhar.

p. 8

ii.Whether the finding that Plaintiff No. 1 was not a tenant under the original landlord was perverse in light of DW-3’s evidence.

p. 9

03Law Applied

Section 100 CPC confines a second appeal to a substantial question of law.

pp. 14–16

Under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC, where a decree rests on a ground common to multiple plaintiffs, one plaintiff may appeal from the whole decree, and the appellate court may grant relief in favour of all; the court relied on Hemareddi (D) through LRs v. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani, (2019) 6 SCC 756, and Govindan v. Subramaniam, (2000) 9 SCC 510, concerning an appellant-purchaser’s standing to challenge a finding affecting the title conveyed by the vendors.

pp. 14–16

The court also applied the principles that adoption must be established by evidence and that merely being brought up or living with a person does not establish adoptive status.

pp. 12–14

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the respondents’ objection that Plaintiff No. 2 could not challenge the finding against Plaintiff No. 1: Plaintiff No. 2 had an interest as purchaser, and the suit’s dismissal rested on a ground common to the plaintiffs, engaging Order XLI Rule 4 CPC.

pp. 14–16

On the merits, however, the record did not establish Plaintiff No. 1’s relationship to Jaladhar or a legally recognised adoption. Although PW-3 initially described Nirod as Jaladhar’s nephew, PW-3 admitted in cross-examination that Nirod was not related to Jaladhar or Chintamoni and had merely lived at Jaladhar’s house.

pp. 12–14

The Court therefore found no perversity in the concurrent findings, including the finding that the evidence did not establish Jaladhar’s occupancy tenancy.

pp. 17–18