Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dhananjoy Ghosh & Anr vs Kartik Chandra Dhara & Ors on 5 July, 2022
Dl. July 5,
20. 2022
S.A. 124 of 2021
Dhananjoy Ghosh & anr.
Vs.
Kartik Chandra Dhara & ors.
None is appearing on behalf of the appellants, nor any
accommodation is prayed for.
The present appeal has arisen out of a judgment and
decree of affirmance passed by the learned Additional District
Judge at Katwa, Burdwan, in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2002 arising
out of judgment and decree dated July 31, 2002 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Katwa, in Title Suit No. 23
of 1991.
The plaintiff/respondent filed the present suit for
partition and recovery of khas possession. The plaintiff claims that
she is the owner in respect of plot no. 978/1128 to the extent of 16
annas share as mentioned in schedule 'ka' to the plaint and that she
has also 8 annas share in respect of plot no. 977, as described in
schedule 'kha' to the plaint, in respect of which the defendant no. 3
is a co-sharer. The plaintiff alleged that on July 15, 1990, she was
forcibly dispossessed from the 'ka' scheduled property by the
defendants/appellants for which the plaintiff instituted a suit against
the appellants for declaration of title and injunction. The said suit
was contested by the defendants/appellants by filing written
statement. From the written statement filed in the said suit, the
plaintiff came to understand that there was an agreement for sale
executed by her. The plaintiff alleged that no such agreement was
ever executed by her. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant
no. 1 was a bargadar under the plaintiff. For the purpose of
irrigation, the defendant no. 1 obtained left thumb impression of the
plaintiff on a blank paper for making an application for taking
irrigation water. The plaintiff alleged that the said document was a
forged one and that the left thumb impression was obtained in the
blank paper for the purpose of preparation of the alleged agreement
for sale.
The defendants no. 1 and 2, who are the appellants
herein, contested the suit by filing written statement and counter
claim as well as cross suit to the effect that they never dispossessed
the plaintiff/respondent and prayed for a decree for specific
performance of the said agreement for sale.
The trial court as well as the first appellate court
arrived at a finding that the plaintiff was an illiterate lady and that
left thumb impression of the plaintiff was obtained on a blank
paper. The trial court shifted the onus upon the defendants to
establish the purpose for which such left thumb impression was
obtained. Once it is disputed that this document was fraudulently
obtained, all benefits therefor must fail.
In view of such clear findings based on evidence on
record by both the courts below, we are of the view that there is no
reason to interfere with the judgments passed by either of the courts
below. We do not find any substantial question of law involved in
this appeal for which the same is required to be admitted.
The second appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed
under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
There will be no order as to costs.
( Soumen Sen, J. )
dns ( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )
