Dina Nath Chaudhury vs Sg The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6804 Cal

SA 20 of 2012 Item-23.

           21-09-2022
                                            Dina Nath Chaudhury
                                                     Versus
  sg                                    The State of West Bengal & Ors.
             Ct. 8

The appeal was filed in the year 1989 and thereafter not

pursued. The record would show that on 12 th January, 2000, an

order was passed directing the appellant to remove the defects, in

default, put up for final order. However, the revised report filed on

14th February, 2000 shows that defects were removed. Thereafter,

no attempt was made to move this second appeal.

The second appeal is arising out of an appellate decree dated

24th September, 1988 confirming the judgment and decree dated

31st January, 1984 passed by the learned Munsif in a suit for

declaration of title and permanent injunction.

The suit was dismissed since the appellant had failed to

prove its title to the property. The basis of the claim of the

plaintiff is based on rent receipt issued by the zaminders in favour

of Prodip Chand Lal Chaudhury, who in turn, had settled it in

favour of the plaintiff in 1354 BS. The plaintiff claims title to the

disputed property by virtue of this settlement in his favour by

Prodip Chand Lal Chaudhury in the year 1354 BS. The learned

Munsif examined the rent receipt thoroughly and could not

persuade himself to believe the genuineness of the documents.

The learned Munsif also pointed out the discrepancies between the

dakhilas viz. Exhibits 7/8/9/10/11. Those dakhilas (tendered

documents) could not be connected with the disputed land. On a

reference to this dakhilas, it was found that they were granted to

one Rajeswari Prosad Chaudhury, son of Dinanath Chaudhury i.e.

the present plaintiff. In Exhibit 7/7 the name of Rajeswari Prosad

Chaudhury appeared initially. But in the translated copy of the

same, the name of Rajeswari was scored out and the name of the

present plaintiff was written. The counterfoils of those rent

receipts were never produced. The plaintiff contended that the

counterfoils of these rent receipts are not available in the Sherista

of the erstwhile zamindars. It was contended that Piraj Munshi

was the tahasildar of the zamindar of the present plaintiff. But he

was not examined by the plaintiff nor any explanation was offered

for not producing him as a witness.

PW-1, the constituted attorney of the plaintiff and his son

were admittedly not present at the time of alleged settlement in

favour of his father. He stated that they had paid rent to the

Government of Bihar but not a single rent receipt issued by the

Government of Bihar was produced in this regard.

The learned Counsel for the appellant seems to have

contended that an adverse inference should be drawn against the

State for non-production of Form 3B, which would show

settlement. However, even if these documents are produced, they

would not show settlement of the suit land in favour of the

plaintiff. It would at best show that they had been a settlement of

the suit property along with the others in favour of Prodip Chand

Lal Chaudhury.

The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of a settlement not by

Rajawari Prosad Chaudhury by Prodip Chand Lal Chaudhury.

Therefore, the said document is of no relevance in determining the

controversy raised in the suit. Even if the said return is produced

and filed, it could not be recorded as document of title on the basis

of the plaintiff can claim such a declaratory relief. The oral and

documentary evidence produced by the parties and/or on the

appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial

court as well as before the first appellate court. This appreciation

of evidence cannot be said to be perverse. The plaintiff also

desperately prayed for acquisition of his title to the disputed

property by adverse possession. He made a different claim as and

by way of principal relief. It was all through contended by the

plaintiff that he had taken settlement of the suit land from Prodip

Chand Lal Chaudhury. This claim was negative. The ingredients

of adverse possession was not established either. Hence, the

second appeal fails.

SA 20 of 2012 stands dismissed at the admission stage.

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