Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jamser Bepari & Ors vs Moslem Bepari & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3428 Cal

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3428 Cal
Judgement Date : 16 May, 2023

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jamser Bepari & Ors vs Moslem Bepari & Ors on 16 May, 2023

16.05.2023 SL No.27 Court No.8 (gc)

SAT 415 of 2015

Jamser Bepari & Ors.

Vs.

Moslem Bepari & Ors.

The appellants are not represented, nor any

accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellants.

The appeal is of the year 2015. The matter initially

appeared in the Warning List on 6th March, 2023 and

thereafter transferred to the Regular List on 21st March,

2023. Since then the matter is appearing in the list. The

appellants have due notice about the listing of the matter.

The appeal is defective since 28th August, 2015. No

attempt has been made to remove the defect.

The appellate judgment and decree dated 30th May,

2015 affirming the judgment and decree dated 14th

August, 2014 passed by the Trial Court in a suit for

declaration of title and for recovery of khas possession is a

subject matter of challenge in this second appeal.

We have carefully read the judgment of both the

Courts and the grounds of appeal. Both the Courts have

arrived at a finding that the defendants have failed to

prove ownership by purchase or by adverse possession.

There was no plea of tenancy. In absence of proof of

either the possession, all the appellants are of permissive

occupation. The said finding was based on the evidence

of P.W.1 and on consideration of record of rights and rent

receipts. The defendants could not bring the certified

copy of 'touzi' of the suit plot R.S. 303 (LR 334) to prove

its claim. The basis of the entry standing in the name of

the predecessor of the defendants in the suit plot in L.R.

Khatian No.317 cannot, thus, be ascertained with regard

to the claim of the ownership in respect of the suit

property. The alternative claim of adverse possession also

could not be established. The defendants could not prove

that their predecessor had purchased the suit plot from

Abdul Bepari.

Under such circumstances, we do not find any

reason to interfere with the order passed by both the

courts.

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.)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter