Calcutta High Court
Harish Chandra Jaiswal vs Ram Chandra Shaw And Ors on 6 November, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
od-10
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
APO/52/2025
WITH CS/123/2019
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
HARISH CHANDRA JAISWAL
VS
RAM CHANDRA SHAW AND ORS.
Mr. Anshunath Chakraborty, Adv. ...for appellant.
Mr. Meghnad Dutta, Adv.
Mr. ARindam Paul, Adv.
Ms. Sohini Choudhury, Adv. ...for respondent.
HEARD ON : 06.11.2025.
DELIVERED ON : 06.11.2025.
DEBANGSU BASAK, J:
1. Appeal is at the behest of the plaintiff and directed against
order dated February 27, 2025 disposing IA.GA/2/2020 by which, the
plaintiff prayed for a judgment on admission.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws
attention of the Court to the effect that, the appellant filed a suit for
eviction. He points out that there are five defendants in the suit. He
submits that, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are trespassers in the suit at the
time when, the suit was filed. Defendant nos.3, 4 and 5 are co-owners of
the immovable property concerned in which, the defendant nos.1 and 2
are trespassers. He submits that, the plaintiff is co-owner of the
immovable property.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant points out that
during the pendency of the suit, the defendant nos.1 and 2 stated in their
application that, there was an arrangement between the defendant nos.1
and 2 and the defendant no.4 with regard to the immovable property. He
draws attention of the Court to the averments of the defendant nos.1 and
2 in this regard. He submits that, the defendant nos.1 and 2
acknowledged that there was a leave and licence agreement for a
particular period with regard to the immovable property concerned. He
points out that, the defendant no.4 also acknowledged the arrangement of
leave and licence agreement between the defendant no.4 on one part and
the defendant nos.1 and 2 on the other part with regard to the suit
property. He submits that, the defendant no.4 also stated that, the
defendant no.4 terminated the leave and licence agreement.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that,
since, the period of leave and licence agreement expired, the appellant is
entitled to a decree on admission.
5. The defendant nos.1 and 2 are represented.
6. We find from the impugned order that, the learned single
Judge proceeded on the basis of the quality of possession of the defendant
nos.1 and 2. Learned Judge did not find any unequivocal admission on
the part of the defendant nos.1 and 2 with regard to the immovable
property concerned. Learned single Judge, therefore, proceeded not to
allow the application for judgment on admission, after returning a finding
that there was no unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant
nos.1 and 4.
7. As noted above, the suit for eviction filed by the appellant
against the defendants on the basis of that, the defendant nos.1 and 2 are
trespassers of the immovable property concerned. Developments
subsequent to the filing of the suit are pressed into service to seek a
decree of eviction on the basis of admission. The admission claimed is the
averment of the defendant nos.1 and 2 with regard to the creation of a
leave and licence agreement in respect of the suit property.
8. Our attention is also drawn to the effect that, there subsists
an order of injunction passed in the suit. There is an order of injunction
restraining the parties from creating any third party rights over and in
respect of the immovable property concerned.
9. On one hand, if it is contended that, the leave and licence
was in breach of the order of injunction, then, in law, there cannot be any
leave and licence as claimed by the appellant. On the other hand, after,
the leave and licence is construed to be not in violation of the order of
injunction passed in the suit, then also, the so-called leave and licence is
with regard to the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the defendant no.4.
Defendant no.4 did not take any step for eviction of the defendant nos.1
and 2 subsequent to the expiry of the leave and licence period.
10. Significantly, the claim of recovery of possession of the
appellant is on the basis of the defendant nos.1 and 2 being a trespasser
of the immovable property concerned. The so-called acknowledgement of
the leave and licence agreement, is not between the appellant as the
plaintiff in the suit and the defendant nos.1 and 2. Apparently, it is an
arrangement between the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the defendant no.4.
We do not pronounce the quality of such arrangement or the legality or
validity thereof between the parties.
11. We do not find that there is any categorical admission on the
part of the defendant nos.1 and 2 warranting a decree for eviction on the
basis of a judgment on admission to be passed in favour of the appellant
as the plaintiff in the suit.
12. In such circumstances, APO/52/2025 along with all
connected applications are dismissed without any order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
13. I agree.
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
Pkd/S.Mandi.
