GUWAHATI, India, July 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 24:

1. Heard Mr. D. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A. Ikbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Kamrup, Amingaon in Title Appeal No.39/2018 whereby the appeal was allowed thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018 passed in Title Suit No.384/2014 by the learned Munsiff, Kamrup at Amingaon.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though there are various questions of law proposed in the memo of appeal in terms with Section 100(3) of the Code, but he would insist upon the question of law at Serial No.1 to be framed as substantial question of law in the instant appeal and the said is reproduced herein under:

"1. Whether on failure of plaintiff to prove her Gift of suit land made by her father necessarily preclude the plaintiff from getting mutation on the strength of her right of inheritance over the ancestral property (which is not partitioned among legal heirs of the ancestor by metes and bounds?"

4. The question therefore arises before this Court while taking up the instant appeal at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code as to whether the proposed question of law can at all be formulated as a substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal.

. From the materials on record, it is seen that the learned First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants in the suit observed that the plaintiff who is the appellant herein could not have acquired right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land on the basis of Gift dated 15.01.1982 on the ground that the donor i.e. the father of the plaintiff having expired in the year 1973. The learned First Appellate Court further observed that the gift on the basis of which the plaintiff got mutation over the Schedule-A land having not been proved, the mutation so granted in respect of the Schedule-A land in favour of the plaintiff was required to be interfered with.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqK2BoCMfQlT512N987abhnaE6wFl7DPeoLZkI7tPeW20&caseno=RSA/209/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010195892024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.