Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA & PRASENJIT MANDAL
Col. Mohit Mahalanobis (Retired)
Versus
Mrs. Suprova Basu & Others
A.P.D. No. 218 of 2009 & C.S. No. 155 of 1995
Decided On : 14-06-2010
EVICTION SUIT - [SUBJECT] - ORDER 20 RULE 12 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, LIMITATION ACT ARTICLE 64, SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT SECTION 6 - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for eviction and mesne profits against the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant was appointed as the Administrator of the building in which the suit property was situated. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed that they had purchased the suit property from the Western Building Corporation and had been in possession of the same until they were dispossessed by the defendant-appellant in the year 1985. The defendant-appellant contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs-respondents' claim of ownership and possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs-respondents. The defendant-appellant filed an appeal against the trial court's judgment. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs-respondents had proved their title to the suit property and their possession thereof, and that the defendant-appellant had failed to establish any right to the property. The High Court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as it had been filed within 12 years of the date of dispossession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for eviction and mesne profits against the defendant-appellant, who was appointed as the Administrator of the building in which the suit property was situated. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed that they had purchased the suit property from the Western Building Corporation and had been in possession of the same until they were dispossessed by the defendant-appellant in the year 1985. The defendant-appellant contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs-respondents' claim of ownership and possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs-respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs-respondents had proved their title to the suit property and their possession thereof, and that the defendant-appellant had failed to establish any right to the property. The High Court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as it had been filed within 12 years of the date of dispossession.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs-respondents had proved their title to the suit property and their possession thereof? 2. Whether the defendant-appellant had established any right to the property? 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiffs-respondents had proved their title to the suit property by producing the agreement of sale between themselves and the Western Building Corporation, the receipts for the purchase price, and the evidence of their possession of the property. 2. The defendant-appellant had failed to establish any right to the property, as he had not been appointed as the Administrator of the suit property and had not obtained any permission from the Court to take possession of the same. 3. The suit was not barred by limitation, as it had been filed within 12 years of the date of dispossession.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-respondents.
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.:
1. This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th June, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship passed a decree for eviction and mesne profits in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. Being dissatisfied, the defendant No.1 has come up with the present appeal.
The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: The respondent No.1 filed a suit before the Original Side of this Court thereby praying for the following relief:
a) “Decree directing defendant No.1 to deliver back peaceful and vacant possession of the said flat fully described in Annexure ‘A’ hereto the plaintiffs;
b) Decree directing the defendant No.1 to submit a true and faithful account of the incomes earned by the defendant No.1 by utilizing the said flat and/or portion thereof and a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.1 for the amount which would be found to have been earned by the defendant No.1 utilizing the said flat and/or portion thereof;
c) In the alternative, enquiry be held to ascertain the amounts earned by the defendant No.1 by utilizing the said flat and/or portion thereof and a decree by passed against the defendant No.1 and in favour of the plaintiffs for the amounts which may be found due and payable by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs on such enquiry;
d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his servants, agents and assigns from in any way dealing with and/transferring and/or alternating and/or encumbering and/or creating and third party interest over and/or in respect of the said flat No.12B on the 21st floor of “Everest” No.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta;
e) Temporary Injunction;
f) Receiver;
g) Attachment;
h) Costs;
i) Further and other reliefs.”
The case made out by the plaintiffs may be epitomized thus:
1. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife and the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of one Jatindra Narayan Basu, since deceased.
2. At all material times the said Jatindra Narayan Basu used to carry on business in Partnership with the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 under the name and style of Messrs Basu Mitra & Co. from premises No.8/2, Kiron Shankar Roy Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid. The said Partnership firm at all material times used to carry on business, interalia, as building contractor.
3. The defendant No.1 is the Administrator of a multistoried building at premises No.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta. The said Multistoried building at Premises No.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta is known as “Everest House” (hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”). The defendant No.1 was appointed as such Administrator by an order dated 25th August, 1980 passed in Suit No.343 of 1979 (Superintendence Company of India (Pvt.) Ltd-vs- Western Building Corporation & Ors.).
4. By a deed of conveyance dated 17th May, 1965, the defendant No.2, one Western Building Corporation and/or its partners, the defendant No.2 being one of them, purchased from Hindustan Building Society Limited all that piece or parcel of revenue free land being premises No.46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid (hereinafter referred as the “said property”).
5. After purchase of the said property, as aforesaid, the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation and/or its partners the defendant No.2 being one of them, decided to develop the said property by constructing a multi-storied building thereon.
6. For the purpose of constructing the said multi-storied building, the defendant No.2 one Western Building Corporation and/or its partners the defendant No.2 being one of them, entered into a contract with the said contractors.
7. Pursuant to the said agreement, the said contractors started constructing the said multi-storied building at the said property. The said multi-storied building was subs
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
