SUSAMA DAS MAHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four second appeals are directed against the Title Appeal No.351 of 1975, Title Appeal No.353 of 1975, Title Appeal No.352 of 1975 and Title Appeal No.362 of 1975 arising out of the Title Suit No.s, namely, Title Suit No.517 of 1967, Title Suit No.518 of 1967, Title Suit No. 520 of 1967 and Title Suit No.519 of 1967 respectively. All the four second appeals are involved identical questions of law and as such, the said four second appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The plaintiff of the respective suits filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Government of West Bengal in respect of the suit properties described in the schedule of the plaint. The State of West Bengal is contesting each suit by filing a written statement in each suit denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. Issues had been framed and the parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge decreed all the four suits on contests with costs against the State of West Bengal and ex parte without costs against the proforma defendants. The right, title and interest of the plaintiff had been declared in respect of the suit properties as described in the schedule of the plaint. The learned Trial Judge had also granted the decree of permanent injunction restraining the State of West Bengal from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the suit properties in each suit.

(2.) Being aggrieved by such order, the State of West Bengal preferred four title appeals and in course of disposal of the said four appeals, the First Appellate Court passed orders to the effect that the plaints of all the suits out of which the those appeals had been filed, were rejected. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in those appeals. Being aggrieved by such order, the four plaintiffs of the respective suits preferred these second appeals. In these second appeals, the following two substantial questions of law are framed for decision, upon hearing both the sides.

(3.) Having heard the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials-on-record, I find that in these second appeals we are concerned with the notice under Section 80 of the CPC. As noted above, the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs of all the four suits are against the State and so, the notice under Section 80 of the CPC is a must. In this respect, the plaintiff of all the suits had served a notice under Section 80 of the CPC upon the State of West Bengal in all the suits. From the written statement, it does not appear that the State of West Bengal had contended that it did not receive any notice.