JAGANNATH CHAKRABORTY Vs. PARITOSH KUMAR DUTTA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 24th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barrackpore in Title Appeal No. 70 of 2012 affirming the judgement and decree dated 30th June, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 377 of 1998 at the instance of the defendant no.1/appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession from the defendant by alleging that the defendant is a trespasser in the suit property. The plaintiff claimed relief for recovery of possession against the trespasser. He claimed that he being the owner of the suit property is entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession from the trespasser. It is claimed by the plaintiff that originally one Renuka Majumder was the owner of the suit property. Her husband Jamini Kanto Majumder had been running rationing business in the suit property. The said Renuka Majumder bequeathed the suit property to Ramkrishna Mission Calcutta Student's Home, Belghoria. Subsequently the said Ramkrishna Mission Calcutta Student's Home, Belghoria transferred the suit property to the plaintiff for consideration by executing a registered deed of conveyance on 22nd September, 1995. After purchasing the suit property, the plaintiff mutated his name in the municipal record and have been paying rates and taxes to the Municipal authority regularly. He has also paid revenue to the State of West Bengal. The sale deed, mutation certificate, khajna dakhila and the tax receipts were exhibited in the suit to support the plaintiff's claim for title in the suit property.

(3.) The defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement denying the allegations made out by the plaintiff in the plaint. He tried to maintain his possession in the suit property on the strength of his long possession thereof. Both the courts below after considering the materials on record held that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving title in the suit property. Both the courts below also held that the defendant has failed to prove his better title than the plaintiff in the suit property. Both the courts below thus held that in such a suit, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for eviction as the plaintiff has been able to prove his title in the suit property and the defendant has failed to prove his better title than the plaintiff in the suit property. When with these findings, the learned Trial Court was pleased to decree the said suit and the learned first Appellate Court affirmed the said decree in appeal, we, sitting in this jurisdiction, do not find any justifiable reason to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We, thus, decline to admit this appeal. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed.