RENU AICH Vs. LAKSHMI DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated 2.4.94 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1030 of 1992 thereby rejecting the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The fact giving rise to the instant appeal is as follows:- One Upendra Nath Aich was the owner of the suit property. The said Upendra Nath Aich died on November 1, 1944 leaving behind him two sons, namely Judgal Kishore and Krishna Chandra and his widow Sarojini Aich. Sarojini Aich died intestate in the year 1953. Krishna Chandra died bachelor on June 12, 1983 and Jugal Kishore died intestate on December 26, 1970 leaving the appellant and the respondent No. 3 as his sole heirs and legal representatives. On July 30,1947 Jugal and Sarojini mortgaged their undivided 2/3rd share in the suit property to one Bejoy Samaddar, husband of the respondent No. 2. Bejoy transferred his aforesaid mortgagee's right to the respondent No. 2 on Jully 12, 1949. Subsequently Jugal and Sarojini on July 16, 1949 transferred their 2/3rd undivided share in the suit property (mortgagor's right) to the respondent No. 2 Therefore, the respondent No. 2 acquired both the mortgagee's interest and mortgagor's interest to the extent of 2/3rd share. Thereafter on February 21, 1954, Krishna sold away his 1/3rd share in the suit property to the respondent No. 2. Therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid sale deeds the respondent No. 2 became the absolute owner of the suit property. Thereafter by a registered sale deed dated June 2, 1975 the respondent No.2 sold the suit property in favour of the respondent No. 1.

(3.) After acquiring title to the suit property the respondent No. 1 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 1523 of 1978 against Sova, the respondent No. 2 for recovery of possession by treating her as a licensee in respect of the suit property. After contested hearing, the aforesaid suit was decreed. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before this court, but ultimately the said appeal was dismissed.