SUNITI BALA DEBNATH Vs. LAL PARSHI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two suits being T.S. No. 168/70 and 150/71 have been tried analogously for the sake of convenience inasmuch as some common questions were involved in both the suits.

(2.) T.S. No. 168/70 was filed by Sm. Suniti Bala Debnath against defendant No. 1 Ramkishan Dube (presently deceased) and substituted by defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(o) as his legal representatives. The case made out by Suniti Bala Debnath is inter alia as follows: The suit property that is premises No. 299, Gopal Lal Thakur Road, originally belonged to Late Hemanta Kr. Roy on his death. His two sons and grand-sons sold the same to one Jagatjyoti Seal in 1931. Two sons of Late Hemanta Kr. Roy are (1) Sailen Kr. Roy and (2) Arun Kr. Roy. Said Jagatjyoti sold the property in 1935 to Smt. Manada Sundari Dasi. Said Manada Sundari sold the property to one Madan Chandra Chanda, her grand-son in 1945. Madan Chanda sold the property to Suniti Bala on 28.5.1969. Allegedly, Ramkishan was a tenant under Madan Chandra Chanda. After the purchase Madan asked Ramkishan to attorn the tenancy and pay rent to Madan. Ramkishan refused to pay rent, even despite demand in writing he had also sublet the property to defendant Nos. 2 to 5 allegedly without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. Consequently, the tenancy of Ramkishan was determined by a notice to quit and on his failure to vacate the premises as required by the notice Suniti Bala filed T.S. No. 168/70. In W.S. filed by her in T.S. No. 150/71 Suniti Bala has denied all the material allegations of the plaint. She had denied the story of Ramkishan's acquisition of title by inheritance from his father who had allegedly taken settlement of the entire scheduled property of which the suit property as described in the schedule 'B' is apart from Hemanta and also by adverse possession. She had asserted that T.S. No. 516 and 765/54 filed by Manada I the Court of learned 1st Munsif, Sealdah were allowed to be dismissed for default as Manada had to title to the suit property at that time and she had no right also to file the suits. She has further claimed that SCC. Suit no. 172 172/59 was filed by Madan against Ramkishan in the same Court for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation before the proper Court as complicated question of title was involved which could not be settled by Small Causes Court. She has challenged the transfer made in favour of Panchanan by Ramkishan as fraudulent and collusive.

(3.) The case made out by Panchanan Shaw is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 150 is that the suit property described in Schedule (b) thereto is a part which originally belonged to Late Hemanta Kr. Roy. One Kanai Lal Roy was a tenant under Hemanta in respect thereof. The property came back into the khas possession of Hemanta who thereafter settled the property with Shaw Pujan Dube, father of Ramkishan at the annual rental plus the obligation to pay municipal taxes. Shew Pujan constructed structures thereon at his own costs and possessed the same by staying over there with his family and letting out some portions to tenants. After his death Ramkishan became the alleged owner of the property as his only son. Ramkishan used to possess the property like his father. Said Ramkishan used to pay municipal taxes and rates in respect of the property. Subsequently, he sold the suit property to Panchanan by executing a deed dated 21.7.1989. Panchanan and his vendor also acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. Said Panchanan made an attempt to be added as party in T.S. No. 168 filed by Suniti Bala but having failed he was compelled to file the suit. According to Panchanan, the transfer in favour of Manada, Madan and Suniti Bala are fraudulent and collusive transfer. It is also the case of Panchanan that Ramkishan was never a tenant under any of them.