Sri Debasish Dasgupta vs Sri Tushar Kanti Chakraborty
2022 Latest Caselaw 4781 Cal

Dl.   July 26,              S. A. 47 of 2021
4.     2022

                            Sri Debasish Dasgupta
                                 Vs,
                            Sri Tushar Kanti Chakraborty

                              The    appellant    is   not    represented,    nor    any

accommodation is prayed for. The matter was adjourned earlier in

order to enable the appellant to produce the certified copies of the

depositions, the reason being that from the impugned judgment it is

evident that the appellant is out of possession of the property in suit.

We may refer to the finding of the appellate court below in this

regard which runs as follows :

"While being cross examined the plaintiff's father as

the PW 1, stated that the defendant has started

constructing a house over the property in dispute. The

witness has also stated that there stands an incomplete

house on such property. In juxtaposition to these

statements one must place and consider the plaintiff's

averment in the plaint to the effect that he had plans to

build a house on the property in dispute. The plaintiff

had only thought of building a house; it is not the

plaintiff's case that he had already begun construction

but the evidence says that there already stands a semi-

constructed house on the property in dispute and it is

also established (and that too from the mouth of the

plaintiff's father) that such construction has been made

by the defendant.

From these statements (as quoted above) by the PW 1,

it is absolutely logical and legal to infer that the

defendant is in possession over the property in dispute.

He has his semi-constructed house over the land which

the plaintiff claims to be his own. The PW 2's

statement in cross examination is also an unmistakable

pointer to the conclusion that the plaintiff had never

obtained actual possession over the property in dispute.

This witness had not only signed the laintiff's deed as a

witness but he is also the son-in-law of Chand Bibi.

According to the witness, Chand Bibi had not han ded

over possession of the property in dispute to any

person."

We find no contrary evidence to take a different view

in the matter. As such, we do not find any substantial question of

law involved in this appeal.

Under such circumstances, the appeal is summarily

dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

There will be no order as to costs.

dns ( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. ) ( Soumen Sen, J. )