Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ct-08 vs Minor Nawaj Sarif on 16 May, 2023
SAT 408 of 2015
26 16.5.2023
Md. Mozahar Hossain
Ct-08 Vs.
Minor Nawaj Sarif
ar The minor defects reported by the stamp
reporter are ignored.
The appellant is not represented.
The appeal appeared in the warning list on
6th March, 2023 with a clear indication that the
same shall be transferred to the regular list on
21st March, 2023, since then the matter is
appearing in the list. The appellant is having
deemed notice of the matter.
The appellate judgment and decree dated
23rd December, 2014 affirming the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court on 16th
September, 2009 in a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction is the subject matter of
challenge in this second appeal.
We have carefully read the judgment of both
the courts below and the grounds of appeal in
order to find whether this appeal involves any
substantial question of law or not.
The trial court in decreeing the suit in favour
of the plaintiff had taken into consideration that
the possession of the plaintiff is proved from the
rent receipt and the record of rights produced by
P.W 3 and certain suspicious circumstances
surrounding the execution of the impugned deed,
on the basis of which the right of the plaintiff
was denied by the trial court decreed the suit in
favour of the plaintiff. The identity of the
attesting witnesses has also showered.
In affirming the judgment of the trial court,
the first appellate court considered the validity
of Hebabil Ewaj purported to have been executed
by Anowara Bibi on 17.11.1988 in favour of the
defendant no. 1 in respect of the suit property as
she was illiterate pardanasin lady and suffering
from rheumatism having her family. Anowara
Bibi undoubtedly was an absolute owner of the
suit property. She was married with the
proforma defendant no. 2 and out of their
wedlock one son and three daughters were born.
These daughters were given marriage and
thereafter Anowara used to live with her only son
and husband in her matrimonial home. Out of
her love and affection she executed Hebanama
on 12.12.2001 and registered on 14th December,
2001 in favour of the plaintiff, who happens to be
her grandson and since then the minor plaintiff
was in possession of the suit property by
cultivating the said land through his father in
order to establish his assertion.
The plaintiff produced Hebanama deed that
was registered on 14th December, 2001. Tax
receipts and other relevant documents including
the L.R & ROR indicate that the said deed was
executed voluntarily following the legal
formalities by the grandmother of the plaintiff.
The trial court as well as the first appellate
court taking into consideration that Anowara
was illiterate pardanasin lady, who was suffering
from various ailments, and also having regard to
the certain suspicious circumstances
surrounding the execution of the impugned deed
in favour of the appellant who happens to be one
of the son-in-laws accepted the findings of the
trial court.
The husband of Anowara Bibi in his evidence
has supported the plaint case and his credibility
could not be impeached. Moreover, the recitals
in Exhibit-A for which the suit land was
transferred in favour of son-in-law of Anowara
was also not proved.
On such consideration, we do not find any
reason to admit the second appeal. The
concurrent finding of facts does not call for any
interference.
The appeal accordingly fails.
The second appeal is, therefore, summarily
dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure at the admission stage
There will be no order as to costs.
(Uday Kumar ,J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
