Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Sanjay Chakraborty & Others - Appellant
Versus
Sripati Mandal - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 140 of 2017 & C.A.N. No. 7876 of 2016
Decided On : 24-05-2019
Rabindranath Mahato, Aritra Sankar Ray, Partha Pratim Roy, Md Hasanuz Zaman, Sarda Sha, Advocates.
The revocability of a license, the construction of permanent structures, and the principle of equity were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
2nd Appeal - Property Dispute - Indian Easement Act, Section 60 - The court discussed the revocability of a license, the construction of permanent structures, and the principle of equity in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, as legal heirs, filed a suit for eviction against the respondents, alleging revocation of license and seeking possession of the suit property. The respondents contested the suit, claiming possession of the entire suit property as licensees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to prove their possession over the entire suit property as licensees and that the license granted to them was not irrevocable. The court also held that the respondents were entitled to compensation for the permanent structure they had constructed on the property.
Issues: The key issues were whether the license was revocable, whether the respondents had proven their possession as licensees, and the entitlement to compensation for the permanent structure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Indian Easement Act, Section 60, and the principle of equity to determine the revocability of the license and the entitlement to compensation for the permanent structure.
Final Decision: The 2nd Appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to vacate the suit property, subject to receiving compensation for the permanent structure. The lower court was instructed to assess the compensation, and the respondents were given 15 days to vacate the property upon receipt of the compensation.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants of this 2nd Appeal are the legal heirs and representatives of deceased sole appellant who were substituted by an order dated 23rd June 2016 passed by a Coordinate Bench of his Court.
2. One Sanjay Chakraborty, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants as plaintiff filed a suit against one Mukut Mondal praying for decree of eviction against the said Mukut Mondal and others on revocation of licence and other incidental reliefs.
3. It is alleged by the plaintiff that one Khirod Chakbaborty was the recorded owner of the suit property more fully described in schedule 'Ka' and schedule 'Kha' of the plaint. Measurement of Ka schedule property is approximately 2 1/2 decimal and that of 'Kha' schedule is remaining 17 1/2 decimal situated in plot No.3000 of khatian No.4837 of mouza Kharigram within PS Mathurapur. The said Khirod Chakrabarty used to reside in the suit plot by constructing a house in a portion thereof and possessed the remaining land by way of plantation and cultivation. Sometimes in 1360 BS, one Manmatha Mondal being the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants requested Khirod Chakrabarty to permit him to stay in a portion of the suit plot. An agreement was arrived at between Khirod and Manmatha to the effect that Manmatha would stay in a portion of the suit property described in schedule 'Ka' of the plaint by constructing a room with mud walls as a licensee without any licence fee under the said Khirod on condition that he would vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the suit land at the earliest after constructing a dwelling house elsewhere. Accordingly, Manmatha started to reside on the suit plot with his family members as a licensee under Khirod. During his life time Khirod executed a deed of gift in favour of his son Sanjay Chakraborty and wife Parbati Chakrabarty on 4th June 1973. The donees accepted the said gift and become owners of the suit plot. The original licensee, namely, Manmatha died about 20/22 years prior to institution of the suit leaving behind his widow, the defendants and his daughters. After the death of Manmatha, his widow and the defendants earnestly requested the plaintiffs to allow them to stay in the suit property. The plaintiffs permitted them to stay in the suit plot. During RS settlement, name of Manmatha was recorded as a licensee in respect of entire plot No.3000. However, Manmatha and thereafter the defendants have been possessing 2 1/2 decimal of land out of 20 decimal of land. The recording of the name of the Manmatha in respect of entire plot of land in dag No.3000 in R.S Record of Rights was wrong and erroneous. After the death of Khirod, the defendants illegally tried to grab the entire suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs revoked the licence of the defendants and called them upon to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the suit property within 1st Jaistha, 1401 BS. It is further stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint that they have been possessing Kha schedule land by constructing a house thereon. They also planted various trees. There are bamboo grove, turmeric and other trees on the suit property. They also cultivate some leafy vegetables on a portion of the said schedule 'kha' property. After revocation of licence, the defendants were inimical against the plaintiffs and tried to change the nature and character of the schedule 'Kha' property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for eviction of the defendants from 'Ka' schedule property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting trees and/or making any kind of disturbance to the plaintiffs in respect of 'Kha' schedule property.
4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein they specifically denied entire allegation made out by the plaintiffs against them. Apart from denial of the plaint case, it is specifically stated by the defendants that their predecessor-in-interest Manmatha was originally a resident of village Pa
