Sri Gunda Boul Das @ Basudeb Boul ... vs Sri Amit Chandra Pal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1742 Cal

08.03.2021
 SL No.3
Court No.12
    (gc)
                                 FMAT 77 of 2020
                                       With
                                  CAN 1 of 2020
                            (Old No: CAN 2673 of 2020)

                   Sri Gunda Boul Das @ Basudeb Boul Das & Anr.
                                        Vs.
                            Sri Amit Chandra Pal & Ors.

                               (Via Video Conference)

                                                  Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee,
                                                  Mr. Arunava Ganguly,
                                                            ...for the Appellants.
                                                  Mr. Rajen Dutta,
                                                  Mr. P.K. Banerjee,
                                                  Ms. Krishna Yadav
                                                         ...for the Respondents.

By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up at

the admission stage along with the connected application.

The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated

18th December, 2019 by the learned District Judge, Hooghly

in connection with an appeal filed by the

plaintiffs/appellants against a judgment and decree passed

by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at

Hooghly in Title Suit No.407/2018 in an application filed by

the appellants under Section 21 of the West Bengal Land

Reforms Act (in short "W.B.L.R. Act") in which the

jurisdiction of the Court to decide the suit was raised and

answered in favour of the present appellants.

We have perused the order of the learned Trial Judge

as well as the Appellate Court. The suit is for declaration

and injunction. In the said suit, the present appellants have

filed an application under Section 21 of the W.B.L.R. Act for

making a reference to the BL & LRO for determination of the

status of the present appellants, vis-à-vis, the suit property.

The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction in

respect of the suit property described in Schedule A and

Schedule B of the Plaint. The learned Trial Court did not

frame any issue as to whether the status of the appellants

as Bargadar needs to be referred to the BL & LRO as it is

clear from the order of the learned Trial Court that at the

invitation of the present appellants, the learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Hooghly framed the following issue:

"Whether the suit is maintainable under Section 21 of

the W.B.L.R. Act?

It is trite law that if in deciding the suit the Court

finds that one or many issues cannot be decided by the

Court, the Court may not pronounce the judgment on such

issues. The Court is also required to find out what is the

primary object of the suit and the principal relief claimed in

the suit. The incidental issues will not be a ground for not

exercising a jurisdiction if the Court feels that the primary

relief if granted to the plaintiffs would be a wholesome relief

to the plaintiffs and the incidental issues could be

consequential. Accordingly, the submission made on behalf

of the appellants that the Court was requested to resolve the

dispute to the BL & LRO for consideration of the status of

the present appellants as Bargadar does not appear from the

judgment of the learned Civil Judge dated 6th March, 2019.

The Appellate Court, in our view, has rightly addressed the

issue and relying upon a judgment of our Court in Dulal

Ch. Dey Vs. Anjali Dey reported at 92 CWN 952 where it

was specifically observed that question of title can never be

referred to the officer or authority under Section 21(3) of the

W.B.L.R. Act and set aside the order of the learned Trial

Court and directed the learned Trial Court to proceed with

the suit in accordance with law and after hearing the

appellants advanced by the parties without being influenced.

There cannot be any doubt that the BL & LRO cannot decide

the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. The relief as to

whether the plaintiffs cannot restrain the defendant from

disturbing the possession is not wholly dependent on the

adjudication to be made by the BL & LRO under Section 21

of the W.B.L.R. Act.

On such consideration, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court. We

feel that there is no substantial question of law is involved

as this issue has already been decided by this Court in

Dulal Ch. Dey (supra). However, we observe that the

appellants shall approach the BL & LRO before whom the

proceeding is pending for determination of the status of the

appellants and in the event any such approach is made, the

said authority shall decide the said issue as expeditiously as

possible as the said determination may have some bearing

in the pending suit.

The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as

expeditiously as possible in terms of the order passed by the

First Appellate Court. However, the Trial Judge may give

sometime to the present appellants for seeking adjudication

of its status as Bargadar before the competent authority not

beyond a period of three months, if prayed for without

disturbing the progress of the trial as directed by the First

Appellate Court. If the trial court in course of deciding the

suit feels it necessary to consider the status of the

appellants vis-à-vis the suit property only then such issue

may be kept pending for three months and not beyond the

said period. This direction is passed since we feel that

keeping the said application filed under Section 21 of the

W.B.L.R. Act pending would benefit the appellants and could

be an excuse to delay the hearing of the suit further as it

appears that the said application has been filed being bad.

With the aforesaid observation, the appeal being FMAT

77 of 2020 and the stay application being CAN 1 of 2020

(Old No: CAN 2673 of 2020) stand disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)                   (Soumen Sen, J.)