SUSHIL KUMAR BANERJEE Vs. BHABANI DASSI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order No.181 dated 1st March, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Chinsurah, Hooghly in Title Suit No.127 of 2017 (Title Suit No.5967 of 2014) is the subject matter of the challenge in the instant revision.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff filed the above numbered suit in the 1st Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chinsurah, Hooghly for a declaration that the defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit property, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. It was pleaded by the plaintiff/petitioner that one Monorama Dassi took loan of Rs.2000/- from the plaintiff and in return of the said loan she promised to transfer .26 decimal of land, morefully described in the plaint by executing a deed of sale. Simultaneously, with acceptance of a sum of Rs.2000/- from the plaintiff, the said Monorama put her in possession. Unfortunately, during her lifetime, Monorama could not execute formal sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. After her death, the suit property was inherited by her children, defendants/opposite parties No.1 and 3. The said legal heris of Monorama subsequently got their joint properties amicably partitioned and B schedule property was exclusively owned and possessed by the defendant/opposite party No.1. The defendant No.1 subsequently executed a deed of sale in respect of B schedule property at a consideration price of Rs.4500/- in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Subsequently, it was revealed that in the said deed of sale, the vendor described schedule B property situated in plot No.608 in place of plot nos. 584, 587 and 589, within mouza - Gopalpur, P.S Dhaniakhali, Hooghly. In fact, the defendant No.1 sold out plot Nos. 584, 587 and 589 measuring 26 decimals of land. Plaintiff further came to know that plot No.608 was already sold to one Badal Chandra Jana, Niranjan Jana and Basudeb Jana (defendant/opposite party No.9) by executing a deed of sale dated 23rd April, 1973 by the defendant/opposite party No.1. Due to wrong description of the schedule of the property, purchased by the plaintiff from defendant/opposite party No.1, a confusion arose over the ownership of B schedule property. Furthermore, the said Badal Chandra Jana, Niranjan Jana and Basudeb Jana mutated their names in the record of rights. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 sold out the plot no.589 in favour of the defendants/opposite parties No.4, 5 and 6 by executing another deed of sale dated 3rd October, 2007. As a result of such wrong description of the suit property which the plaintiff purchased from defendant/opposite party No.1 and subsequent sale of land of plot No.589, a confusion arose with regard to right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit property. Hence the suit.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that defendant/opposite party No.7(a-b) and 8(a-c) are the legal representatives of the said Badal Chandra Jana and Niranjan Jana who had expired during the pendency of the suit.