DURGA SHAW Vs. RAMDHANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of going through the draft Judgment of my Learned Brother I cannot do anything but to record my agreement with His Lordship's findings and ordering portion. But I feel my task will remain incomplete if I do not add a few words to supplement to the Judgment prepared by my Learned Brother.

(2.) The respondents/plaintiffs sued appellant for his eviction on the ground that the appellant and the second defendant viz. one Deoki Shaw are the trespassers in one room in the ground floor of Premises No. 109B, Keshab Chandra Sen Street, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises). The respondent/plaintiff No. 1 after having purchased the suit property jointly with the plaintiff No. 2 in the month of July, 1980 and having considered the list of tenants supplied by the vendors found that the appellant and the second defendant are not figuring as the tenants in the list supplied by the vendors through his learned lawyer, called upon them to establish their right to remain in possession. But they failed to satisfy the plaintiffs. As such, the suit was filed for treating them to be the trespassers and for recovery of khas possession. The second defendant did not file any written statement nor entered appearance to contest the suit. First defendant to contest the suit filed the written statement and took the stand that his father Bedu Shaw was joint tenant with Deoki Shaw. On death of the said Bedu Shaw, the first defendant, being the, son, heir and legal representative, claimed that he was entitled to inherit the right of joint tenancy and as such he cannot be termed to be a trespasser nor he is liable to be evicted.

(3.) On the aforesaid stand taken by the parties in their pleading the learned Trial Judge rendered the Judgment of passing decree deciding the issue as to whether the first defendant is the heir and legal representative of the said Bedu Shaw, meaning thereby whether the first defendant is a joint tenant or not.