Meghalaya High Court Upholds Shillong Club's Century-Old Lease, Says Admitted Deed Cannot Be Questioned Over Mere Non-Production
The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the Shillong Club Ltd., holding that once both parties admit the execution and existence of the lease deed, the First Appellate Court can't invalidate it merely because the original document was not produced.
Justice W.Diengodh remarked that: “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.”
Background
The dispute revolved around a lease of 10.19 acres of land allegedly granted in perpetuity to the Shillong Club in 1923. The problem arose in 2013 when the respondents issued a letter expressing an intention to take back possession of a southern portion of the land on the grounds that it was unutilized.
After the letter, the plaintiff, Shillong Club, filed a Title Suit before the Court of the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, seeking a declaration that the defendant did not have any right to disturb the peaceful possession of the suit property.
However, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that when the portions of land were leased, no objection was raised. Thus, a later objection was barred by estoppel.
Aggrieved, The Shillong Club Ltd. filed a first appeal before the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, which was dismissed.
The Appellate Court held that the 1923 lease deed was not valid because the original was not produced, and it invoked the Assam Frontier Tracts Regulation, 1880, to hold that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, did not apply.
Thereafter, the Shillong Club Ltd filed a second appeal before the High Court of Meghalaya.
Case Name: The Shillong Club Ltd. v/s Shri.Nathaniel than
Case No.:SA. No.4 of 2023
Date of Decision: 17.02.2026
For the petitioner/appellant: Mr. S. Jindal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with Mr. T. Dkhar, Adv.