SEKHAR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY Vs. SUBHRA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two suits between the parties. First of such suits being Title Suit no. 182 of 1988 was a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The said suit was filed by Pratapaditya Road South End Club (hereinafter referred to as "the club") and its office bearers against Subhra Mukherjee and others. The said suit was filed by the said club and its office bearers in the representative capacity with the permission of the learned Trial Judge under order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the time of institution of the said suit the plaintiff club was an unregistered club but subsequently during the pendency of the suit, the said club was registered under the Societies" registration Act. Thereafter the plaint was amended and the plaintiff club was shown as registered club in the Cause title of the plaint. The plaintiffs, in fact, claimed title in respect of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs claimed that the said club was established in the year 1935 and the suit land was all throughout in the uninterrupted, continuous and exclusive possession of the members of the plaintiff club openly and adversely. The plaintiffs further claimed that the members of the plaintiff club have been using the suit land as a playground throughout the year. The plaintiffs also organize various Pujas namely Sri Sri Durga Puja, Lakshmi Puja, Kali Puja, Saraswati puja in every year. Various activities are going on in the suit land for more than fifty years without any interference of anybody. The plaintiffs have been using the same adversely, openly and continuously for more than fifty years by asserting hostile title in the suit land. The plaintiffs, thus, claimed that the plaintiffs have acquired hostile title in the suit property by way of adverse possession. Accordingly, declaration of plaintiffs" title was sought for in the said suit. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought for against the defendant in the said suit. On transfer of the said suit from the original Court to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 8th Court at Alipore, the said suit was renumbered as Title Suit No. 90 of 1999.

(2.) SMT. Subhra Mukherjee and Ors. who were defendant nos. 2 to 5 in the aforesaid suit, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 47 of 1995 against Sri Sekhar chandra Chakraborty who was plaintiff no. 2 in the earlier suit. In the said suit the said Sekhar Chandra Chakraborty was impleaded as defendant therein both in his individual capacity and also in the alleged capacity of General Secretary to an unregistered club under the name and style of South End Club. The plaintiffs claimed declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit property and for a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs" possession in the suit property. In the said suit the plaintiffs claimed that originally one Probhat Ranjan Bose was the owner of the suit property. Jugol Kishore Pal purchased the suit property from the said Probhat ranjan Bose. Thus, Jugol Kishore Pal became the owner of the suit property. The possession of the suit property was with Jugol Kishore Pal during his lifetime. He died intestate on 9th December, 1982 leaving behind him surviving his widow Sarashibala and three sons namely Nihar Kumar, Ashok Kumar and dilip Kumar and one daughter namely Mira Pal who inherited the suit property from Jugol Kishore Pal in equal share. Subsequently Ashok Kumar Pal died and his 1/5th share in the suit property was devolved upon his widow Maya Pal, his son Prabir Pal and his daughter Mausumi Pal in equal share. The heirs of Ashok kumar filed a partition suit being title suit no. 36 of 1984 in the Court of the assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah against Sarashibala Pal and other legal heirs of Jugol Kishore Pal. The said partition suit was decreed finally on 8th august, 1987 whereby the heirs of Ashok Kumar was given a demarcated portion of the said land measuring about one cottah. Rest part of the suit property measuring about two cottachs and eight square feet of land was given to sarashibala Pal, Dilip Kumar Pal and Mira Pal. The other co-sharers of Jugol kishore Pal did not get any allotment in the suit property. However, they were given a non-suit property in their allotment. Subsequently, by a registered deed of sale dated 29th July, 1994 Prabir Kumar Pal and others being the allottee of one cottah of land in the suit property sold their interest therein in favour of the plaintiffs herein and delivered possession of the suit property in their favour. By another registered deed of sale dated 29th July, 1994 the other allottees of two cottahs and eight chittaks of land sold their right, title and interest therein in favour of the plaintiffs and delivered possession thereof to the plaintiffs.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY by a deed of amalgamation dated 30th August, 1994 both the aforesaid allotments were amalgamated and the plaintiffs, thus, became absolute owner of the suit property and they have been peacefully enjoying the same from the date of their purchase. The plaintiffs have also mutated their names in the municipal records of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The plaintiffs have also been paying rates and taxes of the said premises regularly since the time of their purchase. Since the defendant was trying to disturb the plaintiffs" peaceful possession of the suit property, the instant suit was filed. The defendants of the aforesaid suits contested the said suits by filing written statement raising similar claim as they raised in the plaint of the respective suits. Since common question of law and fact was involved in both the aforesaid suits, both the aforesaid suits were tried analogously and both the aforesaid suits were disposed of, by a common judgment passed on 31st May, 2000. The suit being Title Suit No. 47 of 1995 filed by Smt. Subhara Mukherjee and others was decreed on contest. The right, title and interest of the plaintiffs of the said suit in respect of the suit property were declared. The defendants in the said suit were permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The suit being Title Suit No. 90 of 1990 filed by the club and its office bearers was dismissed on contest with costs.