Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ram Mohan Pal vs Ganga Rani Pal Since Deceased ... on 2 August, 2023
02.08.2023.
Item No. 6.
Court No. 13
ap
S.A.T. No. 95 of 2015
With
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023
Ram Mohan Pal
Versus
Ganga Rani Pal since deceased represented by
Swapan Pal & Ors.
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee,
Mr. Abir Lal Chakraborty,
Ms. Sudipa Biswas,
Mr. Rishabh Ahmed Khan.
...For the appellant.
1. The Advocate-on-record for the appellant
undertakes to rectify the defects pointed out by the
Stamp Reporter dated 16th March, 2015.
2. Notice was served on the respondent pursuant to
this Court's direction dated 25 th July, 2023. Service
was effected but was refused. Affidavit-of-service filed
in Court today be kept with the record.
3. The instant second appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 4 th December, 2014 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court,
Howrah in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2005 which affirmed
a judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2004
passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Howrah in Title Suit No. 227 of 1998.
4. The brief facts are that the respondent was a tenant
of the appellant/plaintiff in Title Suit No. 113 of 1994.
The said suit was decreed by the Court of the 4 th
Munsif at Howrah on 27th September, 1996 against the
respondent. By reason of the said decree, the plaintiff
was granted khas possession of the suit property, and
eviction of the respondent was also ordered.
5. For execution of the said decree, a Misc. Case No.
20 of 1997 was taken out by the appellant. Such
application was filed by the appellant to seek police
help for execution of the decree dated 27 th September,
1996.
6. Upon receiving notice of the application for police
help the defendant agreed to settle the disputes with
the plaintiff, that were recorded in a terms of
settlement dated 7th March, 1998. Consequently a
Misc. Case to record the said terms of settlement
referred to as Solenama before the learned 4 th Civil
Judge (Junior Division) at Howrah.
7. By reason of the Solenama and in terms thereof,
the appellant agreed to demolish the existing structure
and allot a portion of the property to the tenant to
house a shop room. The Misc. case was disposed of in
terms of the said Solenama, by the learned 4 th Civil
Judge (Junior Division) at Howrah vide order dated
11th March, 1998.
8. Despite the terms, the defendant/respondent
refused to vacate the premises to enable the appellant
to effect construction. The defendant, namely, Smt.
Ganga Rani Pal, then filed another suit being Title Suit
No. 227 of 1998, inter alia, seeking declaration of
tenancy of a portion larger than that recorded in the
Solenama/terms of settlement.
9. The learned 4th Civil Judge (Junior Division) at
Howrah dismissed Title Suit No. 227 of 1998, inter
alia, holding that the Solenama and/or terms of
compromise dated 7th March, 1998 was binding on the
said Smt. Ganga Rani Pal and/or her legal heirs.
10. The appellant herein preferred a first appeal
before the learned Additional District Judge, 5 th Court
at Howrah against the judgment and decree dated 30 th
September, 2004 being Title Appeal No. 16 of 2005.
The lower Appellate Court confirmed the decree passed
by the First Court i.e. dated 30 th September, 2004 by
the appellate decree dated 4th December, 2014.
11. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant would argue that
the scope of the second appeal is extremely narrow
and limited and this Court finds as such. The
appellant cannot seriously be aggrieved by the findings
of either the First Court or the Court below.
12. The appellant only apprehends that the
expression 'interest in the property' as reserved to the
respondent by the two Courts below could mean an
interest larger than that recorded and agreed in terms
of the compromise terms dated 7 th March, 1998. The
said terms were admittedly confirmed in a decree
dated 27th September, 1996.
13. The expression 'interest in the property' read
with an affirmation of the compromise terms dated 7 th
March, 1998 would essentially and only imply that the
respondent cannot claim any other right than as
recorded in the agreement dated 7 th March, 1998 and
as decreed on compromise on 11th March, 1998 in the
earlier title suit being T.S. No. 113 of 1994.
14. With the aforesaid clarification and observation,
SA.T. No. 95 of 2015 shall stand disposed of.
15. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, the
connected application being CAN 1 of 2023 shall also
stand disposed of.
16. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of
this order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
