Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 4 (CAL)

. v. .

2017-01-03

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th October, 2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Birbhum in Title Appeal No. 39 of 2012 affirming the judgment and decree dated 25th April, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Suri, Birbhum in Title Suit No. 155 of 2004 renumbered as Title Suit No. 38 of 2007 at the instance of the defendant/appellant. 2. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal for which this appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their right, title and interest and for injunction for restraining the defendant no. 1 from interfering with their possession in the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed title in respect of the suit property by virtue of their purchase of the suit property from the admitted owner, viz., Aju Shek through two registered deeds. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant no. 1 is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property. Hence, the instant suit was filed. 4. In such a suit, the defendant no. 1 appeared and contested the same by filing written statement by alleging that he was a tenant in respect of the suit property under Aju Shek. As such, his tenancy remains unaffected, notwithstanding the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs. The defendant no. 1 also prayed for dismissal of the said suit as the suit property was not properly defined in the plaint. 5. The learned Trial Court was pleased to decree the said suit on contest. The learned first Appellate Court was also pleased to affirm the said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. Learned first Appellate Court held that Aju Shek was the original owner and by virtue of purchase of the suit property by the plaintiffs through two registered sale deeds, the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit property. Learned first Appellate Court held that the suit property is well defined and identifiable by the description of the suit property given in the plaint. Learned first Appellate Court also held that the rent receipts which were produced by the defendant no. Learned first Appellate Court held that the suit property is well defined and identifiable by the description of the suit property given in the plaint. Learned first Appellate Court also held that the rent receipts which were produced by the defendant no. 1 to substantiate his claim for tenancy in the suit property are not genuine. Learned first Appellate Court also held that even if the rent receipts are accepted to be genuine, still then, the rent receipts do not relate to the suit property. As such, the learned first Appellate Court being the final court of facts ultimately held that the defendant no. 1 could not establish his tenancy right in respect of the suit property. 6. When with these findings, the learned Trial Court was pleased to decree the said suit and the learned first Appellate Court affirmed the said findings of the learned Trial Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant no. 1, we are of the view that the judgment and decree which is impugned in this appeal does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, we hold that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. As such, we decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed. 7. Since we have not admitted the appeal under the provision of Order XLI 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 No. 5275 of 2016 is, thus, deemed to be disposed of.