Santu Sarkar & Anr vs Hriday Sarkar & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3561 Cal

18.05.2023 SL No.27 Court No.8 (gc)

SAT 315 of 2016

Santu Sarkar & Anr.

Vs.

Hriday Sarkar & Ors.

The appellants are not represented, nor any

accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellants.

The appeal is of the year 2016. The matter is appearing

in the list from 14th February, 2023. The appellants have

due notice about the listing of the matter.

The appellate judgment and decree dated 31st May,

2016 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16th

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

eviction, declaration of title and permanent injunction 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. The plaintiffs were

able to prove title in respect of the suit property on the

basis of R.S.R.O.R. and L.R.R.O.R and Exhibit-4 series

which contains details of Khatian No.682 and 683 over

which the plaintiffs have made claim. It appears from the

evidence as recorded by the Trial Court as well as the

First Appellate Court that the suit property originally

belonged to one Tura Dai and the R.S. record also

recorded the name of Tura Dai and Brajobala Devi in

Khatian No.187 as VITA (Exhibit-1) and Tura transferred

22 decimal of land to Samity by executing a deed of gift in

1964 (Exhibit-2) and Samity thereafter mutated their

names in a record and Khatian No.217 for 22 decimal of

land in Plot No.260 (Exhibit-11/3). In fact, Samity also

constructed an office and godown in some portion of the

said land and the other portion of the land was possessed

by the father of the plaintiffs. On a request being made by

the father of the plaintiffs, the Secretary agreed to sell a

portion of the property which would be evident from the

Exhibit-8 and a communication to that effect was also

made to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society,

Balurghat for getting the required permission. After

obtaining required permission, Samity sold 13 decimal of

land out of 22 decimal of land in Plot No.260 vide deed

No.799 of 2007 with specific boundary (Exhibit-3). These

documents clearly established a title of the plaintiffs. The

First Appellate Court on consideration of the aforesaid

documents and on re-appreciation of the materials

available on record, accepted the judgment of the Trial

Court.

On such consideration, 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.)