ALIPORE TARUN DAL Vs. MALATI PORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of reversal dated 16th december, 1994 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court at alipore in Title Appeal No. 256 of 1994 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 1994 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Alipore in Title Suit no. 471 of 1984, at the instance of the defendant/appellant herein. Let me now give a short background of this case leading to the filing of the instant appeal. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant herein on termination of the licence granted by the erstwhile owner of the suit property in favour of the said licensee. It was alleged in the plaint that by virtue of partition deed, Moni Bhusan Purkait and his brother Dhirendra Bhusan Purkait became the owner of the suit property. The original plaintiff namely Kunja Behari Pore who was originally a tenant in respect of the suit premises purchased the suit property from Moni bhusan Purkait and Dhirendra Bhusan Purkait by two registered deed of sale being exhibit 1 and exhibit 2. The sale deed being exhibit no. 1 was registered sometime in 1981 and the sale deed being exhibit 2 was registered sometime in 1984. It was further stated therein that the defendant was inducted as a licensee in the suit premises by the vendors of the original plaintiff sometime in 1971. After purchasing the suit property the original plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises repeatedly but the defendant did not adhere to the said request. Hence, the instant suit for eviction was filed after termination of licence of the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant/appellant contested the said suit by filing written statement denying its induction as licensee in the suit property by the vendors of the plaintiffs. The defendant, in fact, claimed title in the suit property by way of adverse possession. The defendant claimed that the defendant is in possession of the suit property since 1961. The defendant further claimed that at the time when the defendant entered into the suit room, the defendant club was known as jagrata Sangha. The said club was subsequently merged with Tarun Dal and was registered as a society under the West Bengal Societies" Registration Act. The defendant, thus, claimed that the said defendant is possessing the suit room adversely for more than 12 years without any interference and as such, the suit should be dismissed. During the pendency of the said suit original plaintiff died and his heirs were substituted in the place of the deceased plaintiff. The said substituted heirs of the deceased plaintiff are the respondents in the instant appeal. The parties have led their evidence in the suit in support of their respective claims in the suit.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties as well as their evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the vendor of the original plaintiff granted the alleged licence in favour of the defendant. Though the learned Trial Judge held that the original plaintiffs succeeded in proving their title in the suit property by virtue of purchase of the suit property from the erstwhile owners thereof and have also held that the defendant has failed to prove acquisition of its title by way of adverse possession, still then, the learned Court below refused to grant a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents as the grant of licence by the plaintiffs" vendor in favour of the defendant could not be proved in this suit. Thus, the said suit was dismissed on contest.