Sodhan Khan & Anr vs Niharbala Mukherjee
2022 Latest Caselaw 6346 Cal

07.09.2022
 SL No.35
Court No.8
    (gc)
                         SA 357 of 2016
             CAN 1 of 2014 (Old No: CAN 3332 of 2014)

                         Sodhan Khan & Anr.
                                  Vs.
                          Niharbala Mukherjee




                   The    appellants    are   not   represented    nor    any

             accommodation is prayed for on their behalf.

                   The second appeal has come up for admission.

                   The second appeal was presented on 5th April, 2014

             and thereafter no attempt was made to move this appeal.

             This second appeal is arising out of a judgment and decree

             of affirmation dated 30th January, 2014 of the judgment and

             decree dated 31st January, 2013 passed in T.S. 63 of 2008

             by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court,

             Bolpur in a suit for eviction of a licensee. The plaintiff file a

             suit for eviction of the appellants before the Trial Court. The

             plaintiff was able to establish her title in the suit property.

             The devolution of interest in favour of the plaintiff was not

             under challenge.    The plaintiff alleged that the defendant

             No.1 used to work as agricultural labourer and defendant

             No.2 used to work as maidservant in the house of the

             plaintiff. On 7th July, 2001, the husband of the plaintiff died

             on road accident as the plaintiff was issueless. The plaintiff

             permitted the defendant to stay at Chala hut in the souther

             side of the plaintiff's building.   From the month of July,

             2001 both the defendants started residing at such Chala hut

             with the permission of the plaintiff. Afterwards, for personal
                   2




reason, the plaintiff left the village and came Bolpur and

during such time, the key of the building was handed over to

the respondents for the purpose of looking after her

properties. The position of the defendants was more or less

of a care taker. At the time when the plaintiff decided to sell

the property, the defendants raised objection and prevented

the plaintiff to take any steps towards the sale of the

property. On 15th April, 2008 when the plaintiff went to the

village and directed the defendants to vacate the suit

property within 30th April, 2008, they refused to accept such

request. In view thereof, the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction

of the present appellants. The respondents could not in the

trial establish their title or right to possess the property

based on any title. It is quite established at the trial that

their possession was merely permissive and that of a

licensee. The said view was affirmed by the Appellate Court.

There is no substantial question of law is involved in

the second appeal.

Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed at

the admission stage.

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

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