Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sg vs Ct. 8 Anindya Shankar Roy & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7319 Cal

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7319 Cal
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2022

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sg vs Ct. 8 Anindya Shankar Roy & Anr on 3 November, 2022

SA 235 of 2011 Item-97. CAN 1 of 2004 (old CAN 7700 of 2004) 03-11-2022

Subimal SEngupta sg Versus Ct. 8 Anindya Shankar Roy & Anr.

The appellants are not represented even in the second call.

The matter was initially listed on 28th September, 2022 when the

appellants were also not represented. The appeal was registered in

the year 2008.

The concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Appellate

Court in its judgment and order dated 30 th March, 2004 is the

subject matter of challenge in this second appeal.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable

requirement. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs contended that

they required the ground floor of the suit premises for their own

use and occupation as the existing accommodation of the plaintiffs

is insufficient in comparison with the composition of the family.

Moreover, the wife of the plaintiff no.2 was a chronic arthritis

patient and she cannot climb the spiral and narrow shape wooden

staircase as there is no accommodation in the ground floor.

The defendant contested the suit and alleged that that the

plea of reasonable requirement is false and simply an eye wash

and as the plaintiff intended to construct a multi-storied building

on the land with the help of a promoter.

Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was able to prove its

reasonable requirement. Apart from the evidence of PW-1, the

evidence of DW-1 also taken into consideration, which would

establish that the portion in occupation of the plaintiffs was

insufficient in comparison to the family members.

This finding of fact is bases in cogent evidence. The First

Appellate Court on appreciation of the said evidence affirmed the

order passed by the learned Trial Court. The concurrent findings

of facts are not duly required to be interfered with in this second

appeal unless it is perverse.

On such consideration, we dismiss the second appeal at the

admission stage.

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter