JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Shishir Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “Code”) challenging the judgment and decree 08.08.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.1/2018 whereby the said appeal was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Court of the Munsiff No.1, Lakhimpur, in Title Suit No.12/2013. 3. The instant appeal is taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code and this Court is required to consider as to whether any substantial question of law can be formulated in the instant appeal which has been proposed in the Memo of Appeal in terms with Section 100(3) of the Code. For the purpose of convenience the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the Trial Court. 4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the elder brother of the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are known to the Plaintiff. It is further alleged in the plaint that the Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and as he was in need of money for which the suit land was sold to the Plaintiff vide a registered Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012. On the basis of the said Deed of Sale, the Plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land. The Defendant No.2 as per the Plaintiff was the daughter-in-law of the original pattadar Smt. Lakhi Dey and wife of Late Uttam Dey. The Defendant No.2 was allowed to reside on the back side i.e. towards the eastern side of the suit land by the Defendant No.1 temporarily until the Defendant No.2 could make other arrangements for her residential house. It is the further case of the plaintiff that as the Plaintiff decided to purchase the suit land, the Plaintiff have asked the Defendant No.2 to vacate which she initially promised to vacate. It is the further case of the plaintiff that as the Plaintiff decided to purchase the suit land, the Plaintiff have asked the Defendant No.2 to vacate which she initially promised to vacate. After the purchase of the suit land, there was a verbal agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 and accordingly the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant No.1 to continue his business in the suit land and also agreed to enter into deed of agreement for lease of the house standing upon the suit land but the Defendant No.1 avoided to enter into the written agreement and also refused to vacate the suit premises. On 02.10.2012 at round 2.30 PM, when the plaintiff went to the Defendant No.2’s house to enquire as to when the Defendant No.2 shall vacate the house and the Defendant No.3 was also present in the house of the Defendant No.2 but both Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 refused to vacate the house and told the plaintiff never to come to them. It is under such circumstances that the plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land; for recovery of possession by evicting the Defendants at their own cost and for permanent injunction against the defendants prohibiting the Defendants and agents from entering into the suit land. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.12/2013 and was filed before the Court of the Munsiff No.1, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 5. The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed their joint written statement and also set up a counter claim against the plaintiff and the Defendant No.1. From a perusal of the said written statement, it transpires that the suit land is the ancestral property of the husband of Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.2 was living in the ancestral house located in the suit land with her two daughters. It was further mentioned that the Defendant No.2 and her husband were running a hotel in a temporary shed constructed near the road of the suit land but after the death of her husband on 18.08.2009, the Defendant No.2 could not run the hotel alone for which she let out the shed located on land measuring 4 Lechas of the suit land to the Defendant No.1 @ Rs.1,000/-per month since 01.10.2009. Although, there was no tenancy agreement in writing but the Defendant No.1 continued to run his business from the suit land however, the Defendant No.1 stopped paying rent of the shed to the Defendant No.2 since 2012 by stating that the suit land belonged to him. The Defendant No.2 came to know after making inquiry that the Defendant No.1 had mutated the suit land in his name illegally, surreptitiously and fraudulently. The Defendant No.2 after coming to learn about the mutation, made a complaint before the Circle Officer, Bihpuria Revenue Circle in writing on 13.03.2012 and Misc. Case No.16/2012 was registered on the basis of the said complaint. The Circle Officer after making necessary inquiry, forwarded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur vide an order dated 10.07.2012 for cancellation of the order made earlier mutating the name of the Defendant No.1 in respect to the suit land. 6. It was further stated that the Defendant No.1 thereafter hurriedly sold the suit land to the plaintiff after he received notice from the Circle Officer, Bihpuria Revenue Circle in Misc. Case No.16/2012. As the Defendant No.1 had no saleable right, the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 executed and registered by the Defendant No.1 was illegal and void. On the basis of the said written statement, a counter claim was also filed seeking declaration that the Defendant No.1 had no right, title over the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint; that the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 as illegal, void and inoperative; recovery of possession of 4 Lechas of land out of the suit land by evicting the Defendant No.1; etc. 7. To the said counter claim, the plaintiff filed a written statement denying to the allegations made in the counter claim and stating inter alia that the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff was legal and valid. The Defendant No.1 also submitted a written statement to the counter claim of the Defendant No.2 denying to the contents of the written statement cum counter claim filed by the Defendant No.2. It was mentioned that the Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and the Defendant No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the original pattadar, Smt. Lakhi Dey and wife of Late Uttam Dey. It was mentioned that the Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and the Defendant No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the original pattadar, Smt. Lakhi Dey and wife of Late Uttam Dey. The Defendant No.2 and her husband never ran any hotel in any temporary shed and the Defendant No.2 never let out any shed to the answering defendant for which there was no tenancy agreement between the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. But it is relevant herein to take note of Paragraph 17 onwards of the said written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 wherein he stated that the suit land originally belonged to Smt. Lakhi Dey, Sri. Uttam Dey and Sri. Ajit Dey as would appear from Sl. No. 16, 17 and 18 of Periodic Patta No.74, Dag No.2255 of Bihpuria, Ward No.3, District Lakhimpur. In the year 2009 the husband of the Defendant No.2 Late Uttam Dey, was undergoing great ill-health, for which he approached the Defendant No.1 to sell the suit land and the Defendant No.1 being on good faith agreed to purchase the same. Thereafter on 25.04.2009, the Defendant No.1, her mother-in-law Smt. Lakhi Dey, her husband Late Uttam Dey and Sri. Ajit Dey executed an unregistered deed of sale in favour of the Defendant No.1 on receipt of Rs.2,80,000/- and handed over possession of the suit land alongwith the tin roof house and shop room in presence of witnesses and since 25.04.2009 the Defendant No.1 was in continuous possession of the suit land as owner and since 30.03.2012 as tenant of the plaintiff. 8. Therefore, a perusal of the said written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 would clearly show that Defendant No.1 had claimed right over the suit land on the basis of an unregistered Deed of Sale dated 25.04.2009 and the Defendant No.1 thereafter vide a registered Deed of Sale bearing No.100/01/2012 sold the said suit land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff on the basis thereof has claimed right, title and interest over the suit land. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as 8 issues which were: (i) Whether there is any cause of action for institution of this suit? (ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for the mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? On the basis of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as 8 issues which were: (i) Whether there is any cause of action for institution of this suit? (ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for the mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? (iii) Whether the registered Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 is illegal, void and liable to be cancelled? (iv) Whether the plaintiff have right, title and interest over the suit land? (v) Whether the suit land is the ancestral property of the husband of the Defendant No.2, and hence, the Defendant No.2 has right, title and interest over the suit land more particularly described in the schedule of the counter claim? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for? (vii) Whether the Defendant No. 2 and 3 are entitled to the decree as prayed for? (viii) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 9. The plaintiff examined as many as 3 witnesses and tendered some documents as evidence whereas the Defendant examined two witnesses and tendered some documents as evidence. The Trial Court vide a judgment and decree dated 08.12.2017 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter claim of the Defendant No.2. It was declared that the Defendant No.1 did not have any right, title and interest over the suit land and the registered Deed of Sale No.100/01/2012 was illegal, void and therefore cancelled. Further the Defendant No.1 was directed to vacate his possession from the suit land as described in the counter claim within one month failing which the Defendant No.2 could recover possession as per law and thereafter the plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 were permanently restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Defendant No.2. 10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No.12/2013. The Defendant No.1 however did not file any appeal, although the counter claim was decided against the Defendant No.1. The said appeal filed by the Plaintiff was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.1/2018. 10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No.12/2013. The Defendant No.1 however did not file any appeal, although the counter claim was decided against the Defendant No.1. The said appeal filed by the Plaintiff was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.1/2018. The Court of the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in terms with XLI Rule 31 framed a point of determination which reads as follows- “Whether the Learned Trial Court erred in law and in facts in deciding the suit and counter claim in the impugned judgment requiring any intervention by this Court ?” 11. The First Appellate Court vide a judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019 affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in so far as the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. However, as regards the decree so passed in respect to the counter claim, the First Appellate Court modified the said decree thereby affirming that the Defendant No.1 had/has no right, title and interest over the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint and for recovery of possession of 4 Lechas of land fully described in the schedule given in the written statement of the Defendant No.2 out of the suit land. However, reversed the decree of the Trial Court as regards the declaration that the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 is illegal, void and inoperative. It appears from the judgment of the First Appellate Court that the same was done on the ground that the learned Trial Court had passed the order for cancellation of the Sale Deed which was beyond the reliefs claimed by the counter claimant/the Defendant No.2. It is against the said judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019 in Title Appeal No.1/2018 by the Court of the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur that the present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials on record. In the instant appeal, the Appellant has urged that there are four substantial questions of law which have been mentioned in the Memo of Appeal. Let this Court take into consideration each of the said substantial questions of law so proposed. 13. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials on record. In the instant appeal, the Appellant has urged that there are four substantial questions of law which have been mentioned in the Memo of Appeal. Let this Court take into consideration each of the said substantial questions of law so proposed. 13. The first substantial question of law so proposed is as to whether the finding of the Court below are based on perverse finding of fact and law, in view of the fact that the plaintiff has been able to prove a subsisting title over the suit land. The said question of law so proposed in the opinion of this Court cannot be substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal inasmuch as admittedly the Defendant No.1 claims that on the basis of an unregistered Deed of Sale, he had acquired right, title and interest over the suit land which was subsequently sold to the plaintiff vide a registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012. In terms with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, a property which is immovable property of value above Rs.100/-cannot be transferred, otherwise by way of a registered Deed of Sale. Therefore, Defendant No.1 could not have acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land in order to thereafter execute the registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the said Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 on the face of it was executed by a person who did not have a saleable right over the suit land for which the said Deed of Sale would not have conferred any right, title and interest over the suit land to the plaintiff. Both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court duly have taken into consideration the said aspect of the matter and accordingly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 14. The next question of law so proposed is as to whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code as the decision under the point for determination has been challenged to be perverse and based on irrelevant facts and materials. 14. The next question of law so proposed is as to whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code as the decision under the point for determination has been challenged to be perverse and based on irrelevant facts and materials. A perusal of the First Appellate Court categorically shows that the First Appellate Court duly has taken into consideration the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which mandates that the judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state (a) The points for determination, (b) The decision thereon, (c) The reason for the decision and (d) Whether decree appeal is reversed or varied the relief to which the appellant is entitled to. It appears from the judgment of the First Appellate Court that the First Appellate Court framed a point of determination and had also given the decision thereon. Further to that while discussing the first question of law so proposed, this Court has already observed that there is no perversity in the judgment of either the First Appellate Court or the Trial Court as the relevant materials have been duly taken into consideration. Therefore, the second question of law so proposed cannot be a substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal. 15. The third question of law so proposed is as to whether the plaintiff is non-suited without the authority of law. The said question of law so proposed on the face of it is misconceived inasmuch as a perusal of the counter claim clearly go to show that the counter claim was for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land as well as also for recovery of possession of a part of the suit land wherein the Defendant No.1 was in possession and for permanent injunction. It is a well settled principle of law that in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession, once the rights have been declared, the suit becomes predominantly a suit for ejectment. Under such circumstances, the question of the plaintiff being non-suited without the authority of law on the face of it therefore is totally misconceived. 16. Under such circumstances, the question of the plaintiff being non-suited without the authority of law on the face of it therefore is totally misconceived. 16. The fourth question of law so proposed to be a substantial question of law is as to whether the Courts below failed to mould the relief to the plaintiff and whether the mandatory provisions of law laid down under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was complied with in the instant case. The said question of law so proposed in the opinion of this Court cannot arise in favour of the plaintiff taking into account that no relief could have been granted to the plaintiff unless and until the plaintiff could have shown that he had right, title and interest over the suit land. It is trite that once the declaration of right, title and interest have been granted in favour of a particular person, the person who claims adversarial interest has to show a better title as to why he should be allowed to remain in possession. Therefore, the question of moulding the relief in favour of the plaintiff in the instant case does not arise as the plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title and interest over the suit land. 17. However, it is relevant herein to take note of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. In the counter claim, it would be seen that the Defendant No.2/counter claimant has sought inter alia for declaring that the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 as illegal, void and inoperative. The Trial Court vide its judgment and decree declared that the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 as illegal, void and therefore cancelled. The First Appellate Court reversed the said declaration on the ground that the learned Court below passed the order for cancellation of the said registered Deed which was beyond the reliefs claimed by the counter claimant/Defendant No.2 and thereby entirely reversed the declaration sought for that the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 was illegal, void and inoperative. The First Appellate Court reversed the said declaration on the ground that the learned Court below passed the order for cancellation of the said registered Deed which was beyond the reliefs claimed by the counter claimant/Defendant No.2 and thereby entirely reversed the declaration sought for that the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 was illegal, void and inoperative. It surprises this Court that just on the ground that the Trial Court had granted a further relief beyond what has been claimed, the First Appellate Court has totally reversed the entire relief that too without taking into consideration the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 which empowers the Court that it shall not be necessary to ask for the general or other reliefs which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it has been asked for. The declarations which have been sought for that the Sale Deed No.100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 is illegal, void and inoperative was in relation to a Deed of Sale so executed by a person who has no saleable right over the suit land. The Trial Court in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 7 also granted the further relief of cancellation as it flows from the declaration so given that the Sale Deed No. 100/01/2012 dated 29.03.2012 was illegal and void. The First Appellate Court ought not to have therefore interfered with the said decree passed by the Trial Court and that too on the ground that the Trial Court had granted a further relief beyond which was asked for. 18. Therefore, in exercise of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code and for meeting the ends of justice, this Court therefore reinstitute the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as stated in paragraph No.52 of the Trial Court judgment. 19. In view of the above, the questions of law so proposed in the instant appeal are not substantial questions of law involved in the instant appeal. Accordingly, same cannot be formulated in terms with Section 100(4) of the Code. Under such circumstances, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 20. Prepare the decree accordingly.