KENARAM PRAMANICK Vs. SHITAL BETAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated November, 23rd 2017, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 235 of 2013, present petitioner /plaintiff preferred this Revisional Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order learned Trial Court pleased to reject plaintiff 's prayer for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) Plaintiff 's case in a nutshell is that plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 235/2013 contending inter alia that the schedule mentioned suit property to the plaint, belonged to Shib Chandra Pramanick and Ananta Kumar Pramanick and while they were in absolute possession of the same, they sold it to Atul Chandra Pramanick and Anukul Chandra Pramanick by registered deed dtd. 28/2/1970. After purchase they got possession and while they were in possession, they sold the said suit property to the plaintiff by executing deed dtd. 1/2/1975 and delivered possession to the plaintiff and since then plaintiff is in absolute possession of the same. During L.R. attestation, the suit schedule property was recorded in the name of plaintiff but in the final publication, 12 decimal of land in plot No. 414 was wrongly recorded in the name of Atul Chandra Pramanick and taking advantage of such erroneous recording, Atul Chandra Pramanick and his agents and legal heirs of Anukul Chandra Pramanick are trying to take forcible possession of the said schedule property and in this connection two cases being Title Suit No. 163 of 2005 and Misc Case No. 14 of 2010 are still pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Howrah. During pendency of the aforesaid Misc Case No. 14 of 2010 in connection with Title Suit No. 163 of 2005, Atul Chandra Pramanick since deceased, allegedly executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 to 5 and on the basis of said power of attorney, defendant No.2 to 5, on behalf of Atul Chandra Pramanick executed a deed of sale in favour of defendant No.1 on 18/11/2005, but the plaintiff was not aware about the said deed. Few months back, some persons with vested interest along with defendants came to the suit plot and claimed that they have purchased 13.5 decimal of land in plot No. 414 and are threatening that they would dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule mentioned suit property. Atul Chandra Pramanick, since deceased, executed the said deed, by exercising fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and said deed was never acted upon. So, the plaintiff filed the present suit being T.S. 235/2013 for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants No.1 contesting the said suit by filing written statement and denied all material allegations and contended inter alia that the plaintiff already sold out his property, so he has no right title interest in the property and as such defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. In the said suit evidence of plaintiff i.e. PW1 and 2 are completed and the evidence on behalf of DW1 is also completed.