MRINMOY KUMAR KAR Vs. SAKTIPADA MAJI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 24th July, 2014 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 3rd Court Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2014 (54 of 2010) affirming the judgement and decree dated 21st May, 2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk in Title Suit No.108 of 2006, at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not.

(2.) Here is the case where we find that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit property. It is alleged that he executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 on 31st August, 2001 and according to him that was an ostensible sale in favour of the purchaser. He further claimed that prior to the said sale, an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 for re-conveyance of the suit property in favour of the said defendant. However, subsequently on the request of the defendant no.1, the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 on 30th August, 2001.

(3.) The plaintiff claimed that the said transaction was a loan transaction in substance. Since subsequently the defendants refused to re-convey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the said suit.