ANINDYADASGUPTA Vs. DEBASISH BAISYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER No. 28 dated 10th June, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Alipore in T. S. No. 219 of 2006 whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Order 22 Rule 10, CPC dated 05-12-2007 of the added defendant/ opposite party us under challenge.

(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2/ opposite party No.-1 and 2 praying for a decree for redemption-of mortgage by deposit of dues upon granting, decree for reopening of the accounts in respect of the occupational charges in respect of the ground floor of the suit property as described in schedule B to the plaint for adjustment with simple interest in terms of the deed of mortgage and for a decree for cancellation of the deed dated 16th of June, 1993 on the ground of he said deed being fraudulent and for other consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs purchased the A schedule property i. e. 48 Sarat Ghosh Garden Road, calcutta - 31 from one Smt. Aparna Debi sometime in the year of 1981. A two-storied building was raised thereupon and by a deed of mortgage the plaintiffs mortgaged the suit property by securing a loan of Rs. 50,000/-from the defendants payable with interest and 18% p. a. and the mortgage was redeemable by 26th of December, 1993. After the execution of mortgage the defendants requested for letting them to possess the property which is the ground floor of the premises No. 48c Sarat Ghosh Garden Road on condition that occupational charges payable by the defendant would be adjusted towards payment of interest per month and, accordingly, the defendants enjoyed the property since 1992. Then taking advantage of the discomfortable family condition of the plaintiffs the defendants compelled the plaintiffs to fully part with possession ; and they allegedly prepared a draft deed of lease which purported to show the defendants to be lessee therein under the plaintiffs who executed the said deed allegedly in good faith without perusal of the contents of the deed. It was discovered that the documents on which the plaintiff signed was a deed of conveyance which was got executed by the defendants on 16th June, 1993.

(3.) THE defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and have been contesting the suit in the trial Court.