GUWAHATI, India, June 27 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 28:

1. Heard Mr. A. C. Sharma, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. N. Alam, 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 challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2024 passed in Title Appeal No.18/2022 by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No.54/2014 dated 29.08.2018 was set aside.

3. This Court has taken up the instant appeal at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code to ascertain the questions of law so proposed are substantial question of law which can be formulated in the instant appeal.

4. Mr. A. C. Sharma, the learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the memo of appeal wherein the questions of law so proposed to be the substantial questions of law have been incorporated. Taking into account that the appellant has proposed the following questions of law as substantial questions of law, the same are reproduced herein under:

"1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in relying the statements made in paragraph Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of the written statement of defendant No.2/Respondent No.1 as defendant No.2/Respondent No.1 did not adduce evidence in the suit as such learned lower appellate Court should take a presumption that the case set up by defendant No.2/Respondent No.1 is not correct?

2. Whether the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in misinterpreting Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to fraud committed by defendant No.1 and 2/Respondent No.1 and 2?

3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in not declaring the Power of Attorney and Sale Deed as fraudulent and are liable to be cancelled?

4. Whether the learned lower appellate Court ought not to pass judgment mainly on the cross-examination of the plaintiff without going through the documents which were exhibited without objection?"

5. For the purpose of deciding as to whether any substantial question of law can be formulated to proceed with the appeal, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the learned Trial Court.

7. A plot of land admeasuring 4 Katha 5 Lechas covered by Old Dag No.783 and Old Patta No.43 of Village Fatasil under Mouza Beltola was purchased by the father of the plaintiff vide a registered Sale Deed bearing Deed No.688 dated 04.02.1982 and obtained mutation of the said land vide an order dated 01.11.1987 in Misc. Case No.16/1986. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's father during his lifetime sold the said property to some vendor which the plaintiff had no knowledge.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqJKvqEwf8%2B1my1CuDlpZMucLMUeyAYg5wyEcVADPf%2Bw7&caseno=RSA/212/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010231522024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.