SUNIL BARAN DUTTA Vs. KAMALA BALA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

(3.) One Durga Bala Dutta (wife of Panchanan Dutta) and the present appellant, namely, Sunil Baran Dutta (son of Panchanan Dutta) brought a suit against the respondent No.1 in S.A.245 of 2010, namely, Jyoti Prasad Laha and in such suit the other respondents in the present appeals were added as parties. The said suit was filed for a decree for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property. The suit property is R.S. plot No. 203 measuring .63 acre recorded in Khatian No. 131 of Sheet No. 17 of Mouza and P.S. Chandannagore, District Hooghly. The said suit was numbered as title suit No. 35 of 1984 and was placed before the Court of learned First Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Chandannagar. During the pendency of the case the said Durgabala Dutta died, and Sunil Baran Dutta, the present appellant, continued with the suit as the sole plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff/appellant was that the suit property originally belonged to one Krishna Das Dutta who executed a deed of settlement dated 09.09.1957 and gave the suit property to the husband of the original plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff No.2, that is, Panchanan Dutta, since deceased, and delivered possession to the said Panchanan Dutta who died in the year 1969. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit property as owners thereof but on 26.02.1994 the present appellant found that the defendant No. 1 was taking steps for selling the suit property after having purchased the same from Ajit Tosh. The plaintiffs' further case was that Krishna Das Dutta, after having executed the deed of settlement, had no right to make any deed of gift, and, accordingly, all the deeds executed subsequent to the deed of settlement are void, illegal and sham transactions. The plaintiffs' further case was that the said Krishna Das Dutta, after execution of the said deed of settlement, was compelled by one Prafulla Kumar Dutta who is the predecessor-in-interest of some of the defendants in the suit to execute a deed of gift after revoking the deed of settlement when Krishna Das Dutta did not have any right to revoke the said deed of settlement. The plaintiffs' case was that neither the said Prafulla Kumar Dutta nor his transferee, Ajit Tosh, nor Joyti Prasad Laha nor any of the defendants in the suit had and/or have any right, title, interest or possession in the suit property. The plaintiffs' case was that the plaintiffs were compelled to file the suit as the defendant No.1, Jyoti Prasad Laha, had denied the plaintiffs title in the suit property.