LAWS(CAL)-2013-5-45

PARTHA MAJUMDAR Vs. MRITYUNJAY KHARA

Decided On May 08, 2013
PARTHA MAJUMDAR Appellant
V/S
Mrityunjay Khara Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant no.11 in Title Suit No. 32 of 2010 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Barasat has assailed the Order No. 27 dated September 26, 2012 passed in the said suit, by which, the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the said defendant as well as the defendant nos. 13 to 17 and defendant nos. 24 to 26 are dismissed.

(2.) The Opposite Party No.2 traced her title in respect of the suit property by way of inheritance from her mother namely Sushila Bala Dasi, since deceased, who was the absolute owner thereof. As per the plaint case, it appears that the suit property originally belonged to one Sourav Moni Dasi who sold, transferred and conveyed the same by executive a deed of sale dated 9th October, 1940 in favour of the mother of the Opposite Party No.2 namely Sushila Bala Dasi since deceased. The said owner (Sushila Bala Dasi) was illiterate and had only one daughter namely the Opposite Party No.2. Taking advantage of the illiteracy of the Opposite Party No.2, one Subal Chandra Mondal being the relative, manufactured a deed of gift executed on 20th January, 1960 in favour of his sons purported to have been executed by the Opposite Party No.2.

(3.) Taking advantage of the illiteracy of the Opposite Party No.2 and keeping her in dark about the execution of the purported deed of gift, the said Subal Chandra Mondal executed several deeds divesting the suit property and have also initiated several proceedings in different Courts and obtained favourable orders therefrom. The said Subal Chandra Mondal got the names mutated in the L.R. record of rights behind the back with the opposite party no.2. Subsequently, she appointed the opposite party no.1 as constituted Attorney to look after the said properties who on searches came to know the said Subal Chandra Mondal has manufactured a forged and fabricated deed of gift and had executed several deeds on the strength thereof and the persons, who are beneficiary to the aforesaid transactions, are in possession therein. The cause of action as it appears has been pleaded to accrue on May 24, 2009, when the plaintiffs/opposite parties were resisted by the defendants at the time of recovery of the suit property.