NARAYAN CHANDRA LAHA Vs. RAM SURAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows : The plaintiffs-respondents filed a Suit for Ejectment against the original defendant, Natabar Laha, under the Transfer of Property Act in respect of the suit property. The learned Trial Court decreed the said Suit and granted a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs by evicting the defendants-appellants therefrom. The defendants-appellants filed a Title Appeal challenging such decree of ejectment. The Title Appeal concerned was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court and the defendants-appellants (since the original defendant died, the present defendants-appellants have been substituted) filed the present Second Appeal challenging the judgement and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court.

(2.) It appears from a perusal of the learned Trial Court's decree that the learned Trial Court found that the notice contemplated under the said Act was served upon the defendants-appellants and it was a valid notice. Since the defendants-appellants had filed a joint written statement which included a counter claim to the effect that the defendant No. 1(a) is a tenant in respect of the suit property independently and not as a successor to the original defendant, the learned Trial Court had to decide such issue and the learned Trial Court came to the finding that the claim made by the defendants that the defendant No. 1(a) was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property cannot be accepted and, thus, the defendants failed to get any relief with regard to the counter claim. The learned Lower Appellate Court affirmed the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

(3.) The following two substantial questions of law were formulated for the purpose of hearing the appeal : i) "Whether or not the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in not coming to a finding that since the defendants/appellants had taken the objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court at the very initial stage of filing of the written statement, the learned Trial Court should have framed a specific issue in this regard and the learned Trial Court erred in not deciding such issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction. ii) Whether or not the learned Court below committed any error in not holding that the suit property had vested in the State of West Bengal."