Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 967 (CAL)

Naba Kumar Mondal v. Chhabi Mondal

2015-12-14

DEBI PROSAD DEY, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd court, Suri, Birbhum in Title Appeal No. 51 of 2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar Court, Suri, Birbhum in Title Suit No. 84 of 2002 at the instance of the defendants. 2. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. 3. Parties are closely related to each other. The plaintiff is the maternal aunt of the defendants. Admittedly the husband of the plaintiff was the maternal uncle of the defendants and he was the owner of the suit property. He executed a deed of gift bequeathing the suit property in favour of his wife on 2nd May, 2000. 4. Registration of the said deed of gift was completed on 29th April, 2002. Husband of the plaintiff also executed another deed of gift bequeathing the suit property in favour of his nephews (defendants/appellants) on 30th May, 2000. Registration of the said deed was completed on 22nd February, 2001. Parties are thus making rival claims of title over the suit property through those two deed of gifts. 5. Section 47 of the Registration Act says that once a document, which is required to be registered compulsorily, is registered, the effect of such document relates back to the date of execution of the deed. If the principle underlying Section 47 of the Registration Act is applied in the present case, then we have no hesitation to hold that the deed of gift which was executed by the husband in favour of his wife on 2nd May, 2000 was earlier in point of time than the deed of gift which was executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of his nephews on 30th May, 2000. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the wife derived title in respect of the suit property from her husband by virtue of the deed of gift executed by him in her favour on 2nd May, 2000. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the wife derived title in respect of the suit property from her husband by virtue of the deed of gift executed by him in her favour on 2nd May, 2000. We, thus, do not find any illegality in this part of the findings of the courts below. 6. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the defendants/appellants submits that the suit was not properly valued and sufficient court fees has not been paid and as such, he submits that the courts below ought to have dismissed the suit for non-payment of proper court fees. According to him, the suit should have been valued on the basis of the valuation of the suit property which was allegedly given by the plaintiff's husband in favour of the plaintiff. 7. We cannot agree with such submission of Mr. Chatterjee as it is settled law that when a person who is not party to the document wants to avoid the effect of such deed, he is not required to value the relief claimed in the suit as per the valuation of the suit property. Thus, we hold that the relief claimed in the suit by way of declaration was properly valued by the plaintiff and sufficient court fees was also paid thereon. 8. We do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted. We thus decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The appeal thus stands dismissed. Re: CAN 6285 of 2011 (Stay) 10. Since we have not admitted the appeal under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no further order need be passed on the interim application for stay. The said application being CAN 6285 of 2011 is thus deemed to be disposed of.