The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of unchallenged evidence in proving ownership rights and the consequences of a party's failure to appear and contest a suit.

1. This is a suit praying, inter alia, for a decree for khas possession of the suit premises described in the Third Schedule of the plaint and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and/or their men, agents, servants and/or assigns from alienating, creating third party interests, inducting outsiders, encroaching upon, using, utilizing or howsoever otherwise dealing with the suit premises and further for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver up vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs.

2. The suit is of 2011. However, it has been recorded by an order dated 13th September, 2017 that despite summons being issued to defendants, save and except defendant nos.1, 2 and 3, no one entered appearance. Record reveals that defendant nos.1,2 and 3 entered appearance on 11th April, 2012 but no written statement has been filed since 2012. Despite the matter being adjourned, no one entered appearance on behalf of the defendants. No written statement has been filed and, therefore, the suit was directed to be taken up as an ‘undefended suit’.

3. Matter was directed to be listed as ‘undefended suit’ on 14th September, 2017 but no one entered appearance. Matter was finally heard on 18th September, 2017. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff no.1, Arati Ghose, wife of Late Bibhuti Prasanna Ghosh, expired. An application being G.A. No.3142 of 2011 was taken out by the plaintiffs. The said application was disposed of by an order dated 16.11.2011 and on the strength of such order name of Arati Ghose was expunged. Name of Chitrita Dey, the plaintiff no.2 was numbered as plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.3, Swastik Projects Pvt. Ltd. Was renumbered as plaintiff no.2. Although, such amendment has been allowed to be carried out in the cause title of the plaint but corresponding amendment does not appear to have been carried out in the body of the plaint. However, in order to avoid any technical defect wherever in the plaint, Chitrita Dey’s name appears, she will be called as plaintiff no.1 and Swastik Projects Pvt. Ltd. Will be called as plaintiff no.2.

4. The plaint case in a nutshell is as follows :

(a) One Bibhuti Prasanna Ghose (since deceased) was the sole and absolute owner of premises no.12, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071, measuring about 1 bigha, 6 cottahs, 11 chhitaks and 12 sq. ft. with a two-storied old and dilapidated building and several out-houses thererat more fully and particularly mentioned and described in the First Schedule of the plaint.

(b) The said Bibhuti Prasanna Ghose, since deceased, during his lifetime, constructed another three-storied building at the said premises on its rear side.

(c) After the demise of Late Bibhuti Prasanna Ghose, the plaintiffs, Arati Ghose (now dead) and Chitrita Dey, respectively being the widow and daughter of said Bibhuti Prasanna Ghose, jointly became the absolute owners in respect of the said premises (save and except two flats of the aforementioned rear side building which had been conveyed by the said Bibhuti Prasanna Ghose to the proforma defendants).

(d) Original plaintiff nos.1 and 2 along with the proforma defendants decided to develop the said premises by constructing a new multistoried building after negotiation with the existing tenants and/or occupiers in order to obtain vacant possession of the portions under their occupation and thereafter, demolishing the existing building and structures thereat.

(e) In pursuance of an application made by the original plaintiff nos.1 and 2 sometime in July, 2002, Kolkata Municipal Corporation duly sanctioned a building plan for construction of G+4 storied building at the said premises.

5. At the request of the original plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and the proforma defendants, the plaintiff no.3 agreed to construct a new building at the said premises in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on condition, inter alia, that on completion of the said building