Sk. Laku & Ors vs Sk. Riajuddin & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 11 Cal

Dl.   January 4,
54.     2022
                                    Through Video Conference

                                         F.A.T. 175 of 20218

                                              Sk. Laku & ors.

                                                   Vs.

                                         Sk. Riajuddin & ors.

                                Mr. Chirantan Sarkar,
                                     ...for the appellants.

                                Mr. Syed Nurul Arefin,
                                     ...for the respondents no. 1 to 3.

Re: CAN 2202 of 2018 (Stay) filed on April 13, 2018.

Although the matter is appearing under the heading

"application", by consent of the parties, the appeal itself is taken up

for final consideration.

The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and

decree dated December 14, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge

(Senior Division) at Burdwan, by which the report of the learned

advocate commissioner was accepted.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants has submitted that the learned trial judge has completely

misdirected his mind in accepting the report submitted by the

learned advocate commissioner disregarding the vehement

objection raised by the appellants with regard to various defects in

the said report. It is argued before us that there is a glaring defect in

identification of the suit property.

We have perused the judgment under appeal passed by

the court below as well as the report of the learned advocate

commissioner. The dispute is with retard to 4.3 decimals of land

only as presently raised before us on behalf of the appellants. This

is an admitted position that the learned advocate commissioner

conducted the chain survey as well as took independent

measurement with the assistance of the other mouza map in

presence of the parties. It is significant to mention that both the

parties have identified the suit property and on the basis of such

identification and the same being compared with the respective

mouza map of plots no. 10085, 10086 and 10087, the findings were

arrived at by the learned advocate commissioner. The portion taken

up for partition work was 1803.03 sq. ft., that is, 4.144 cents of

land. The plaintiffs have claim more area which has now been

curtailed by reason of the said survey report and reduced to 4.3

decimals of land in reality.

In our view, once the parties have duly identified the

suit property and the discrepancies are negligible, there is no

manifest error in the report prepared by the learned advocate

commissioner.

On such consideration, the appeal and the connected

application for stay are dismissed.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.

                                                   ( Soumen Sen, J. )



dns                                          ( Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )