Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6416 Cal
Judgement Date : 8 September, 2022
08.09.2022
SL No.28
Court No.8
(gc)
SA 79 of 2021
Satyabrata Mitra & Anr.
Vs.
Sasanka Sekhar Mitra
The second appeal appeared in the daily list on 25th
July, 2022 and no interest was shown by the appellants
to move the second appeal.
The appellants are also not represented today nor
any accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the
appellants. Although, the appellants have sufficient
knowledge and notice of the listing of this matter.
The second appeal was presented on 5th August,
2010 but thereafter no attempt was made to move the
second appeal for admission.
The second appeal is arising out of an appellate
decree dated 17th February, 2005 passed by the Fast
Track Court in T.A. No.223 of 2002 affirming the
judgment and decree dated 26th April, 2002 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore in T.S.
No.168 of 1997. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of
possession. Although it was mentioned as a suit under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act but in effect is a title
suit where the issue of title came up for consideration
while deciding the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of
khas possession. It appears from the judgment of the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court that the
2
suit property was originally belonged to Smt. Bidyut
Mitra, that is the mother o the present appellants and wife
of the respondent. Due to wayward behaviour of the
appellants, the mother of the appellants, Smt. Mitra
executed a deed of trust and settled the property in favour
of the plaintiff on 31st December, 1996 and thereafter she
has executed a Will dated 7th January, 1997 in respect of
the suit property in favour of her elder son. The
appellants contended that the plaintiff is not the absolute
owner of the property claimed joint possession. In course
of evidence, it transpired that the trust deed read with the
Will shows that the intention of their mother is to confer
absolute title on his eldest son. The execution of the deed
of trust is not in dispute. It was by reason of such deed of
trust, the plaintiff claims trustee over the suit property.
The appellants could not dislodge the claim of the plaintiff
with regard to the deed of trust excepting a bare denial.
The plaintiff contended that on 28th December, 1996, the
appellants forcibly entered to the house and dispossessed
the plaintiff from the room of the suit premises which was
under the direct possession of the plaintiff. P.W.1 in his
evidence further stated that while he was dispossessed by
the appellant No.1, he lodged a police complaint and filed
a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate. The deed
of trust was proved in accordance with law. The deed of
trust would show that the plaintiff was in possession of
the suit property after the death of the wife. The proof of
possession having been established both before the Trial
Court as well as before the Appellate Court, the plaintiff is
entitled to recover khas possession of the room from
which he was dispossessed.
The concurrent findings of facts by the Trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court with regard to the
possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property
from which he was dispossessed does not appear to be
perverse or based on no evidence. There is no substantial
question of law is involved in this second appeal.
Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed at
the admission stage.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!