Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Represented By Smt. Shova Narayan ... vs Smt Juthika Dutta on 14 September, 2021
14.09.2021
Item No.38
RP
SAT 207 of 2016
+
IA No.CAN 2 of 2021
CAN 3 of 2021
(Via Video Conference)
r
Kumar Paritosh Narayan (deceased)
Represented by Smt. Shova Narayan & Ors.
Vs.
Smt Juthika Dutta
Mr. Naba Kumar Das
Mr. Siladitya Mondal
.... for appellants
Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf
of appellants and submits, substantial questions of
law are involved in the appeal and it be admitted.
His clients, defendants in the suit, had got
their names recorded as in possession of suit
property, being tank fishery. Their case was better
argued in the first appeal, where several points were
urged. Firstly, the suit was barred under section 57B
in West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and
section 61 in West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
Without prejudice, predecessors-in-interest of plaintiff
were inducted as tenants on 25 th August, 1955, such
induction being after date of vesting. The correction
was duly made to record his clients' name in respect
of suit property. As such, the trial Court decreed the
suit without jurisdiction and the lower appellate
Court went further to sit in appeal over the order of
the Administration, in recording names of his clients.
We have perused the judgments. The trial
Court dealt with controversy put up before it by the
parties. It found on facts that documentary and oral
evidence revealed plaintiff to have title. In coming to
such finding said Court noticed that the evidence also
revealed, proceeding before the Administration,
resulting in recording of names of defendants in
respect of suit property, was without notice to
plaintiff. The Court said, even then, the order passed
by the Revenue Officer has no bearing in the present
case nor it would help in deciding title of parties to
the suit.
The lower appellate Court upheld judgment
of the trial Court. In addition to dealing with issues
framed at trial, said Court also framed two questions
and gave answers thereto. The questions are
reproduced below -
"(i) as to whether the suit was barred in view of
provisions of s.57B of W.B. Estate Acquisition
Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of
1953) or S.61 of W.B.L.R. Act, 1955 or s.51C of
the W.B.L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the
Act of 1955) or not and
ii) as to whether the plaintiff has right, title and
interest over and/or in the suit property or not."
Regarding the first question the lower
appellate Court said, inter alia, as follows:-
"Now, admittedly, nowhere either in Act of
1953 or in the Act of 1955, power has been
given to the Revenue Officer or any
Prescribed authority to decide the question
of title and taking such decision falls within
the domain of Civil Court and if situation so
arises that to decide question of title, one
court is to look into aspect of incidents of
tenancy, as to whether such suit would be
barred or not."
Answer to the question was given in the negative, on
the controversy between the parties being on title.
Second question was answered on finding
the Narayans were intermediaries. They retained suit
property, being tank fishery. Plaintiffs were inducted
and in possession to ultimately become lessees under
the Government. All this in finding that plaintiff has
title.
In view of aforesaid, there is no question
involved in the appeal.
SAT 207 of 2016 along with CAN 2 of 2021
and CAN 3 of 2021, are dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
(Sugato Majumdar, J.)
