SANAT SARDAR Vs. LAKSHMI KANTA SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order dated September 24, 2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah in Title Suit No. 1 of 2005 by which an application filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for rejection of the affidavit as to examination-in-chief of D.W. 2 is allowed. The suit instituted by the plaintiffs/opposite parties pertains to the declaration of their title by way of inheritance from their father who acquired the title in respect of the suit premises by dint of purchase. It further appears that the dispute relates to the nature of the document whether the same is the loan in substance or an absolute sale.

(2.) The parties advanced their rival defences and the Court framed the issues to be decided in the said suit. Admittedly, the evidence of the plaintiffs/opposite parties is complete and one witness on behalf of the defendants is examined and discharged. It is undisputed that one Anil Sardar, the petitioner No. 2 herein who is one of the defendant in the said suit, deposed as D.W. 1. The defendant No. 8 submitted the affidavit as to examination-in-chief but the plaintiffs/opposite parties objected for his deposition. An application for rejecting the affidavit as to examination-in-chief submitted by the said defendant No. 8 as D.W. 2 was filed praying for the rejection of the said examination-in-chief, on the pretext, that the earlier witness (D.W. 1) already deposed for himself and the other defendants, and, therefore, the said witness should not be allowed to depose as it would amount to the multiplicity of the same evidence and would also waste the valuable time of the Court. The said application was opposed by the defendants/petitioners as the D.W. 1 being the defendant No. 2 deposed for himself and the other co-sharers but did not depose for defendant Nos. 6 to 10 who have their independent, right, title and interest. The Trial Court allowed the said application by making a categorical finding that once a joint written statement is filed by all the defendants. One witness for an on behalf of the defendant is competent. It is further observed that to avoid the repetition of the evidence, the said witness should not be allowed to adduce evidence.

(3.) The copies of the affidavit as to examination-in-chief filed by the D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 are annexed to these revisional applications. On looking at the affidavit filed by the D.W. 1, the very first Paragraph thereof says that he being one of the defendants is deposing for self and as well as for his other co-sharers. The second Paragraph proceeds with the statement that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/opposite party namely Sashi Bhusan Sardar since deceased transferred the two and half cottahs of land to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 by executing and registering the deed of sale dated December 21, 1935. The affidavit submitted by the defendant No. 8 (D.W. 2) says that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Nos. 6 to 10 namely Kalipada Sardar, Lalmohan Sardar and Rampada Sardar had interest to the extent of 3 sataks of land in the suit dag and, therefore, they have acquired the title by way of law of succession on the death of the said recorded owner.