Md. Jumman Ali Mondal & Ors vs Altab Mondal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1090 Cal

08.02.2021                                   SAT 21 of 2020
                                                  with

Item No. DL - 01                             CAN 1 of 2020
nandy                                        (CAN 712 of 2020)
(CORRECTION)


                                    Md. Jumman Ali Mondal & Ors.
                                                 Vs.
                                         Altab Mondal & Ors.

Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, Advocate Mr. Sibasish Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Hare Krishna Halder, Advocate Mr. Ardhendu Nag, Advocate Mr. N.N. Chattopadhyay, Advocate ......for the Appellants

This matter has been listed today at the instance of the appellants as the order dated February 2, 2021 contains omission.

The Assistant Registrar (Court) who took the dictation on the said date is not available. It is enquired that there is a reflection therein that the appeal was admitted after framing substantial questions of law.

Such omission is apparent and evident and there is no impediment on our part to correct the said order dated February 2, 2021.

Since the appeal was admitted on the said date, we record that the appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

i) Whether the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court have substantially erred in law in granting a decree on the basis on an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure producing LRROR and some dakhilas certified and issued from the statutory authorities holding the same to be documents of possession and title of the defendants ignoring the statutory principles of law that once the additional evidence is allowed to be taken on record the appellate Court is under obligation to give opportunity to the other side to file additional evidence by way of rebuttal.

ii) Whether the learned Judges of the lower appellate Court have substantially erred in law in granting decree for declaration of title in favour of the defendants reversing the judgment of the trial Judge without taking into consideration that once the compromise decree claiming title on the basis of the deed of gift (Exhibit - B) is found to be obtained by impersonation and forgery, therefore, no title on the basis of deed of gift can be declared in favour of the defendants.

iii) Whether the learned Judges of the lower appellate Court have substantially erred in law in not disposing of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants and only passed a decree for declaration of the validity of the gift deed on the basis of an application under Order XLI Rule 27 filed on behalf of the defendants.

Let this order be conjointly read with the order dated February 2, 2021.

(Harish Tandon, J.)

(Kausik Chanda, J.)