SUDHIR KUMAR KARMAKAR Vs. RATAN CHANDRA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the appellant in this case of judgment of reversal. The respondent / plaintiff filed said suit for ejectment with the following averments:-

(2.) THE appellant defendant contested the said suit by filing a written statement alleging, inter alia, that he got Ka schedule property comprising of 11 decimals of land from his father through a deed of gift and later on, sold out .04 decimals of land to his four brothers. His further case is that later one of his brother Kalipada sold back .01 decimals of land to him. In 1375 B. S. he incurred some loans from the market for marriage ceremony of his daughter and that only on receipt of Rs.200/- from the plaintiff, he executed a sale deed in respect of .03 and half decimals of land at a consideration of Rs.1500/- with the understanding that plaintiff would pay back balance amount of Rs.1300/- very shortly. It is further case that as the plaintiff failed to pay said balance amount of Rs.1300/- defendant did not deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and continued to possess the same as its owner.

(3.) IN support of his contention he refers case laws reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court page 2403 (The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore vs. H. Narayanaiah) and 2008 (4) CHN page 162 (National Film Development Corporation Ltd., vs. Shantilal Bakliwal). There is no denial that if any document is admitted into evidence by allowing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure then the Court should record reasons for said admission and that too after giving opportunity to the adversary to refute said document by adducing evidence. The aforesaid case laws reiterated those settled principles of law.