Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Meghalaya, Single Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh, dismissed a Second Appeal arising from a century-old perpetual lease dispute over approximately 10.19 acres of land in Shillong, holding that the First Appellate Court erred in invalidating the 1923 lease deed solely on the ground that the original document was not produced, when both parties had already admitted its existence and authenticity. The Court observed that such a finding was perverse and unsustainable, as mutual admission of a document's execution renders its non-production legally inconsequential.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by a club seeking declaration and permanent injunction regarding land covered under a lease deed dated 20.03.1923 executed between the club and a clan. The suit was initiated after the clan issued a letter communicating its decision to take back possession of a southern portion of the land allegedly lying unused. The club contended that the land measuring about 10.19 acres was leased to it in perpetuity under the 1923 lease deed for the purpose of establishing a golf course and that the clan had no right to disturb its possession.

Also Read: High Court's Contempt Jurisdiction Not Extinguished By Doctrine Of Merger When SC Merely Affirms Without Fresh Directions: Supreme Court

The defendants denied the claims and asserted that an earlier lease of 1914 had covered 16.91 acres and that around 6 acres had been returned to the clan in 1923, after which the new lease was executed for the reduced area. They also stated that portions of the resumed land had been allotted or sold to different persons and that no objection had been raised by the club at the relevant time.

The trial court examined two witnesses and considered documentary evidence before dismissing the suit. An appeal filed before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed. The club subsequently filed a second appeal raising substantial questions of law relating to the grant of relief without counter-claim and the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in tribal areas in light of the Assam Frontier Tracts Regulation, 1880.

The Court examined the nature of the dispute and recorded that the controversy essentially concerned the boundaries and extent of land covered by the 1923 lease. It observed that the lease deed itself was not disputed by the parties and that the land measuring about 10.19 acres was acknowledged as leased to the appellant.

The Court noted that the trial proceedings revealed no dispute regarding the existence of the lease deed and stated “There is no dispute between the parties as regard the said Lease Deed and the nature thereof, that is, that it is a lease for perpetuity.”

The Court examined the reasoning of the First Appellate Court which had treated the lease deed as invalid on the ground that the original document had not been produced. It recorded that both parties had admitted the existence of the lease and observed that such a finding was unsustainable. The Court stated “In view of the admission of the parties as to the existence or authenticity of the said lease deed 20.03.1923, the learned First Appellate Court could not have come to a finding that the said lease deed is not a valid deed.”

The Court further recorded that the reasoning adopted by the appellate court could be regarded as legally flawed, observing that “such finding can be termed as a perverse finding not based on evidence.”

Regarding the claim that the appellate judgment granted relief to the respondents without a counter-claim, the Court noted that the impugned decision did not confer any relief or possession upon the respondents. It recorded “there is no finding or direction which has specifically bestowed the respondent clan with any relief… the possession of the appellant club over such land has not been disturbed.”

The Court also examined the finding relating to the Assam Frontier Tracts Regulation, 1880 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It noted that neither party had raised the issue in pleadings or evidence. The Court recorded that “nothing in the plaint or the written statement or even in the evidence was the issue of the application of the Assam Frontier Tracts Regulation, 1880… being applicable to the case of the parties.”

Consequently, the Court observed that such findings could not form the basis of the decision and that the appellate court’s conclusions on this aspect were legally flawed.

At the same time, the Court noted that the trial court’s conclusions regarding the entitlement to relief could not be interfered with. It recorded “the concurrent findings on facts by the trial court as well as by the First Appellate Court cannot be upturned by this Court.”

Also Read: Alarming Breach Of Separation Of Powers: Meghalaya High Court Directs District Council Court Judge To Cease Functioning As GHADC Executive Committee Secretary

The Court directed that the reasoning of the First Appellate Court invalidating the 1923 lease deed could not be sustained. It recorded that “the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court to the extent indicated above, is factually and legally flawed, and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. The findings at para 85 of the impugned judgment of the learned First Appellate Court, would however be maintained. This Court, except to the extent indicated hereinabove, finds no merits in this Second Appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Jindal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Senior Advocate; Mr. T. Dkhar, Advocate

Case Title: The Shillong Club Ltd. v. Nathaniel Thangkhiew & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: MLHC:78
Case Number: SA No. 4 of 2023
Bench: Justice W. Diengdoh