Smt. Dipsikha Chakraborty & Anr vs Arjun Kanti Basu & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4269 Cal

  33
15.07.2022.
   mb




                             S.A. No. 373 of 2006
                                     with
                           IA No. C.A.N. 2 of 2012
                            (Old No. 598 of 2012)
                                     with
                               C.A.N. 7 of 2021
                                     with
                               C.A.N. 8 of 2021

                     Smt. Dipsikha Chakraborty & Anr.
                                   -vs.-
                          Arjun Kanti Basu & Anr.


                 Mr. Surajit Samanta,
                 Mr. Balai Lal Sahoo,
                 Mr. Biswajit Samanta,
                 Ms. Sohini Samanta
                                  ...for the petitioners

                 Mr. Samir Kumar Dutta
                               ...for the respondents

After the matter being substantially heard on the

arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, it

appears to the Court that, apart from the substantial

questions previously formulated, an additional substantial

question of law is required to be formulated in the matter,

which is as follows:

(i) Whether, due to subsequent change of law,

the defendants/appellants have acquired a

right to claim validation of the disputed

transactions during the pendency of the

second appeal?

It is relevant to mention that the originally

formulated three substantial questions of law are as

follows:

(i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court

committed substantial error in law in

reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial

Court?

(ii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court

committed substantial error in law in not

accepting the appellants at least as tenants, if

not owners?

(iii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court

committed substantial error in law in not

holding that the suit is barred in view of the

provisions of Sections 7, 8, 10 and 21 of the

West Bengal Land (Regulation of Transfer) Act,

1993?

Due to paucity of time, the hearing of the matter

cannot be concluded today.

Let the Second Appeal along with connected

applications be enlisted for further hearing on August 05,

2022.

It is left open to learned counsel for the respondent

to dispute whether the additional question is a relevant

substantial question in the present second appeal.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)