Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Maniruddin & Ors vs Sk. Jalaluddin on 27 September, 2022
27.09.2022
SL No.27
Court No.8
(gc)
SA 75 of 2022
Sk. Maniruddin & Ors.
Vs.
Sk. Jalaluddin
The appellants are not represented, nor any
accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellants.
The second appeal was tendered in the year 2016
and thereafter no attempt was made to move the second
appeal. This appeal first appeared in the list of 9 th
September, 2022 and thereafter continued to appear in
the list. The appellants had sufficient notice of the listing
of the appeal before this Bench.
The appellate decree dated 27th January, 2016
affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Trial Judge on 15th November, 2014 in connection with a
suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is
the subject matter of challenge in the second appeal.
The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on
contest. The Appellate Court has affirmed the said
decree. This second appeal has come up for admission.
The suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs
failed to substantiate the claims by oral and documentary
evidence. It appears that the plaintiffs have filed
computerized finally published L.R record of rights
(exhibit 2 series) as to the plot nos.490, 491, 492 under
khatian no.23/1, plot nos.490 and 492 under khatian
2
no.492/3, plot nos.490 and 492 under khatian no.23/3,
plot nos.490 and 492 under khatian no.354/2, plot
nos.490 and 492 under khatian no.446/2 and also plot
nos.331,332, 366, 367,368,369,371,424,425,552,
361/812, 373/842 under khatian no.228 of mouza;
Ajoydhyanagar and Government rent receipts relating to
the abovementioned khatians (exhibit 3 series), which are
not at all related to the suit plot nos.487 and 539 of
Ajoydhyanagar Mouza. Insofar as the oral evidence of the
plaintiffs is concerned, the learned Trial Court refused to
rely on such evidence of P.W.3 as he is an interested
witness and he does not even know the plot number of the
suit property or the name of the parties to the suit.
As opposed to the aforesaid evidence, the defendant
has produced the deeds dated 19.06.1963 and
06.02.1990
(exhibit B and C) to substantiate his claim
that he purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of
Sk. Aziz and other co-sharers. Specifically, the deed
dated 19.06.1963 (exhibit B) executed by Sk. Jalil, Sk.
Khalil, Arimom Bibi, Sk. Asgar Ali, Maharjan Bibi, and
others in favour of the present defendant, comes to put
light on the facts that it is the predecessor of the present
plaintiffs, Sk. Jalil, who sold the suit property to the
present defendant by registered deed and the present
plaintiffs, claiming interest through Sk. Jalil cannot deny
the execution of the said deed in favour of the present
defendant without challenging the said deed as per the
procedure of law. In view of the fact that when a
registered deed of sale relating to the property is in force
then the claim of the plaintiffs that inherited the suit
property from Sk. Jalil is a futile attempt by the plaintiffs
to claim ownership as it has no basis at all. Moreover, the
defendant before the Trial Court had produced the finally
published L.R. record of rights relating to the plot no.487
and 539 of Ajodhyanagar mouza (exhibit E) and
Government rent receipts (exhibit A series) to show his
possession over the suit property.
The First Appellate Court relying upon Exhibit B
and C and considering the fact that necessary parties
were not joined affirmed the decree passed by the learned
Trial Court.
The aforesaid findings are based on cogent
evidence. We do not find any substantial question of law
involved in the second appeal.
Accordingly, the second appeal being SA 75 of 2022
stands dismissed at the admission stage.
It appears that the appellants are not interested to
proceed with the second appeal.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
