PREMENDRA KR MITRA Vs. AMARENDRA KR MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 11/1995 affirming the judgment and decree dated August 10, 1994 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 76/93.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit for partition valued at Rs. 60,000/-. The case as has been made out by the plaintiff is, inter alia, as follows:

(3.) By a registered deed of conveyance dated 10.7.1979 the plaintiff and the defendant jointly purchased a piece and parcel of land measuring more or less three cottahs being portion of the then premises No. 2/2A Dr. Panchanan Mitra Lane, P.S. Beliaghata. The plaintiff and the defendant jointly purchased the property and developed and mutated their names in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. After mutation the said land was renumbered as premises No. 2/2N Dr. Panchanan Mitra Lane being separated from the original premises No. 2/2A, Dr. Panchanan Mitra Lane. After purchase and after mutation both the plaintiff and the defendant jointly got a plan sanctioned by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and constructed one storeyed building consisting of two flats distinctively divided by the staircase in the middle. It has also been stated in the plaint that the contribution of the fund towards the cost of construction was equally made. The construction was made under the supervision of the defendant who was living at Calcutta near by the said premises. The plaintiff being an employee of Durgapur Projects Ltd. had been residing at Durgapur at the relevant time when the construction of ground floor was in progress. The plaintiff contributed his share of cost to the defendant and he had occasionally visited the said premises when he used to come to Calcutta. The original purchase deed, sanctioned plan and tax receipt have been lying with the defendant as he had been looking after the property. The defendant after completion of the ground floor completed the front portion flat of the said building and the plaintiff was given back portion flat of the ground floor. The plaintiff had to accept the special arrangement as the defendant was in advantageous position having full control over the situation.