Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapas Kumar Maity vs Pradip Kumar Chatterjee & Anr on 18 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HARISH TANDON
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
SAT 121 of 2023
With
CAN 1 OF 2023
Tapas Kumar Maity
- versus -
Pradip Kumar Chatterjee & Anr.
For the appellant : Mr. Chayan Gupta
Mr. Rahul Das
Mr. Asutosh Sing
Mr. Rahul Sharma
Judgment on : 18.10.2023
Prasenjit Biswas, J:-
1. Both the Courts have decided the case against the appellant.
2. The only question involved in this case is that whether the
respondent/plaintiff has ownership over the Schedule B Property as
mentioned in the plaint.
3. Three properties have been mentioned in the schedule of the
plaint as A, B and C. A Schedule denotes the entire property whereas
Schedule B and C are located inside the A schedule and integral part
of the same. In the extreme end of the property mentioned in the A
schedule, there is a two-storied building which has been mentioned
in the schedule B of the plaint. The plaintiff/respondent claims to be
the owner of the said B schedule property. It is the case of the
plaintiff/respondent that the vacant l and of the A scheduled property
has been transferred to the present appellant/defendant by dint of
two registered deeds of sale being No(s) 875 and 876 of the year 2008
but he never transferred the building mentioned in the B schedule in
any way to the appellant/defendant. It is the specific case of the
plaintiff/respondent that only the land as described in the C
schedule property has been sold by virtue of the aforementioned two
registered deeds of sale and the sketch of maps appended with those
two deeds would reveal the portion sold to this appellant and
remaining portion of the plot of land has been remained with the
plaintiff/respondent.
4. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed written
statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. The
appellant/defendant took a stand that the plaintiff/respondent sold
land along with building standing thereon by two registered deeds of
sale and the said quantum of land was surrounded by a boundary
wall. It is further contended by this appellant that the respondent
delivered possession to him in respect of entire land along with
residential house standing thereon as mentioned in the Schedule B
of the plaint. It is the claim of the defendant/appellant that he
became absolute owner in respect of plot of land and residential
house standing on it and is possessing the same.
5. Two deeds are marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 in the case and
sketch maps are appended with those two deeds and from those
maps it appears that the house of the plaintiff/respondent has been
described to be situated in the Western part of the property so sold.
It appears from the aforesaid two registered deeds of sale that the
vacant land from the A schedule property has been transferred in
favour of this appellant as described in the schedule C of the plaint.
From the Schedule of the deed being No. 886 it appears that the
house of the plaintiff/respondent is situated in the Western side of
the schedule land purchased by the present appellant. Those two
deeds of sale throw light about the existence of the house of the
plaintiff/respondent in the South-Western side of the sold land to the
appellant. Moreover, there is nothing in the two deeds which would
reflect that the plaintiff/respondent sold any structure situated on
the plot of land in favour of the defendant/appellant and B schedule
property has not been included in the land so sold to the appellant
by the respondent.
6. It further appears from the deposition of the appellant that he
admitted that the land purchased by him was lying vacant covered
by a boundary wall. So, there is no doubt in our mind that the
appellant/defendant purchased only land as described in the C
schedule of the plaint and the house standing of the plot of land is
remained with the respondent/plaintiff.
7. We are not unmindful about the proposition of law that where
the boundaries are vague and indefinite, the area should prevail but
where the boundaries are specified and definite, the land that is
conveyed must be the land within those specified boundaries and the
area must be taken as having been given approximately.
8. So, the principle is that the boundaries mentioned in the deed
shall prevail when there is a dispute between the area of the transfer
of land indicated in the deeds and the boundaries mentioned in the
deeds would clearly apply in the facts of this case.
9. So, we are unable to comprehend the contentions of the
defendant that the entire landed property along with the structure
has been purchased by him for which he has every right to make
construction upon it. We have already stated that from the maps
appended with the deeds of sale it would appear that in the extreme
end of the A schedule property there is a building and we have no
hesitation in our mind that the plaintiff transferred the vacant land
as depicted in the maps in favour of this appellant by registered
deeds of sale.
10. So, we have no hesitation in our mind that both the Courts
below have correctly found that the present appellant/defendant had
purchased only the vacant land as mentioned in the C schedule in
the plaint excluding the building/ structure as mentioned in the B
schedule of the plaint.
11. In view of the above, we find there is no illegality or irregularity
in the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts
below and no substantial question of law is involved in this case.
12. Accordingly, the instant appeal be and the same is hereby
dismissed.
13. However, there will be no order as to costs.
14. Connected application if any is hereby dismissed as disposed
of.
15. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied
for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with
requisite formalities.
I agree.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
