Hosen Molla & Ors vs Ismail Molla
2022 Latest Caselaw 8268 Cal

13.12.2022 SL No.31 Court No.8 (gc) SAT 3114 of 1997

Hosen Molla & Ors.

Vs.

Ismail Molla

Mr. Jahar Lal Roy, ...for the Appellants.

The appellate judgment and decree dated 10th July,

1995 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11th

February, 1994 in a suit for declaration and injunction is a

subject matter of the second appeal.

We have heard Mr. Jahar Lal Roy, learned Advocate

representing the appellant. Mr. Roy has submitted that

the land has vested and that there is a resumption of

possession in favour of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court as

well as the First Appellate Court could not have passed a

decree. It appears from record that the plaintiffs acquired

title in the suit property by purchase from Md. Jalaluddin

Gharami and have been possessing the suit property

since purchase. The plaintiffs have produced the certified

copy of the judgment and decree (being exhibits-1 and

1(a)) passed in T.S. No.618 of 1968. The said two exhibits

show that the vendor of the plaintiffs had brought a suit

being T.S. No.618/68 in the Court of the 1st Munsif at

Baruipore against the State of West Bengal and others.

The title of Md. Jalaluddin Gharami was declared in

respect of the suit property along with some other

properties. It was further declared that R.S. entry in

respect of the suit property is erroneous. Suffice to show

that these documents have remained unchallenged and

the legality and validity of the said documents are not in

question. The clear legal inference that can be drawn

from the said documents/exhibits is that the plaintiffs

became the owner of the suit property and the information

slip produced by the defendants to show that the said

land is vested has no evidentiary value.

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, in

our opinion, on proper appreciation of fact and law has

returned a finding in favour of the plaintiffs. The

concurrent findings of facts are based on cogent and

credible evidence.

Under such circumstances, we do not find any

reason to admit the second appeal.

Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed at

the admission stage.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Uday Kumar, J.)                           (Soumen Sen, J.)