SANTIMAI MUTHLIANG BHOI Vs. JUDY MUTHLIANG BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Second Appeal has been preferred against an order of the Lower Appellate Court dtd. 30/6/2021, whereby judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Court dtd. 3/11/2015, passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 2004, has been upheld. The brief facts are that the appellant's grandmother one (L) Anaperial Bhoi (Muthliang), had purchased the suit property at Mawiong Umjapung, Shillong, which on her demise became the subject matter of dispute between the appellant's mother (L) Atilma Muthliang Bhoi and her siblings namely (L) Alma Muthliang, Martilda Muthliang and Manly Muthliang. A suit was instituted in 2004, by Smti. Alma Muthliang, against the mother of the appellant and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dtd. 3/11/2015, in favour of the plaintiffs, wherein amongst 18 other issues, the Trial Court held that the mother of the appellant was liable to be evicted from the suit property. While the suit was pending, the Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 expired, and during this period the Trial Court by judgment and decree dtd. 3/11/2015, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Against the judgment decree, the appellant who is the daughter of (L) Atilma Muthliang Bhoi, preferred an Appeal before the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, which was numbered as Title Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2015. During the course of the said appeal, the present respondent i.e. daughter of Judy Muthliang Bhoi, substituted herself in place of her late mother. The Lower Appellate Court then upheld the Trial Court judgment and findings, and dismissed the appeal. The decree was ultimately executed on 25 th April, 2022, and the appellant was evicted from the said property.

(2.) When the matter had come up for admission and on the submissions of the learned counsel, the following substantial questions of law were framed on the inputs received from the parties.

(3.) Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel, the Court is to examine whether issues had been framed, which would have covered the grounds as sought to be made out in the Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the instant Appeal before this Court. The Trial Court as seen from the records, had framed 18 issues, which are reproduced herein below.