Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, JJ.
Ashoka Dubey And Others - Appellant
Versus
Arjun Dey And Others - Respondent
SAT No. 402 of 2017, I.A. No. CAN 1, 2 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 10983, 10985 of 2019)
Decided On : 29-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Saptangshu Basu, Advocate, Pratip Kumar Chatterjee, Advocate, Joy Chakraborty, Advocate, Sandipan Dinda, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal act, 1997, and that the Civil Court has plenary jurisdiction to determine all disputes of civil nature unless its cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred by any statute.

Headnote:
eviction - West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal - Bengal Tenancy act, Section 44 - WBEa act, Section 57B - West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal act, 1997, Section 6 and 8
Fact of the Case:

The suit involved a dispute over eviction of licensees on revocation of license. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit plot and sought eviction of the defendants. The defendants claimed ownership based on adverse possession and inclusion in the record of rights.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendants were licensees under the plaintiffs and that the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court. The court also held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal act, 1997.
Issues: The issues involved determination of ownership, eviction of licensees, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in light of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal act, 1997.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit as the substantive claim was for eviction of licensees and the disputes raised could be decided by the Civil Court. The court also emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is plenary and that a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court must be considered having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage as the court did not find any substantial question of law for admission of the second appeal. The court also held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit and that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger Bench or await the decision of a larger Bench.

JUDGMENT

Soumen Sen, J. - This second appeal has come up for admission. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14th august, 2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Kandi, Murshidabad in Title appeal No. 15 of 2016 (CIS registration no. 34 of 2016) by which the judgment and decree dated 7th January, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) 1st Court, Kandi, Murshidabad in other Suit no. 125 of 2001 was affirmed.

Mr. Saptangshu Basu, the learned Senior Counsel submitted on behalf of the appellants submits that in view of the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Kanailal Manna & Ors. v. Bhabataran Santra & Ors. reported in aIR 1970 Cal 99 the Trial Court decree is required to be sent down to the trial court for necessary rectification and/or correction of decree as the trial court decree was passed after the death of the 6th and 7th defendants. It appears from record that the suit was filed in the year 2001 and decreed on 7th January, 2016. The defendant nos. 6 and 7 died on 5th august, 2013 and 24th December, 2005 respectively i.e. after the institution of the suit but before the decree was passed. However, we propose to hear the admission of appeal in order to find out whether any substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal and if we find merit to pass consequential orders.

at the outset we should mention that Mr. Basu has relied upon two decisions of co-ordinate benches in SaT 538 of 2015 (Nemai Chandra Kundu v. Kalyan Das & Ors.) decided on 21st august, 2018 and W.P.L.R.T. 26 of 2019 (Gopal Shasmal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) with W.P.L.R.T. 74 of 2019 (Tarapada Ghosh & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) with W.P.L.R.T. 80 of 2018 (Tarakeswar Palit & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) decided on 29th august, 2019 in support of his submission that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are without jurisdiction as the disputes between the parties are required to be decided by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and in the event we take a different view this appeal should await till the special Bench constituted decides the controversy finally.

Before we advert to the said decisions it is necessary to briefly indicate the facts.

The appellants are the defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants on revocation of licence.

One Ram Nidhi Dey, Lakshman Chandra Dey, Bhuli Bala Dey, Dasorothi Dey were the CS owners in respect of the suit plot. Ram Nidhi Dey was a bachelor. after his death his share in the suit plot was inherited by the plaintiff and proforma defendant nos. 5 to 7 who were the legal heirs of Laksman Chandra Dey. after death of Bhuli Bala Dey her share in the suit plot devolved upon Lakshman Chandra Dey and accordingly he became the owner of share of Bhuli Bala Dey in the suit plot. accordingly, Lakshman Chandra Dey became the owner of 8 anna share of the suit plot and was in possession of the suit plot.

Ram Nidhi Dey, Lakshman Ch. Dey and Ramkumar Dey (husband of Bhuli Bala Dey) are brothers and Uddhop Dey were their father. Dasorothi Dey was the another brother of Uddhop Dey. Dasorothi Dey was the absolute owner of 8 anna share in the suit plot. He died without leaving any heir and accordingly his share in the suit plot devolved upon Lakshman Ch. Dey. Lakshman Ch. Dey became the owner of 16 anna share in the suit plot.

The principal defendants or their predecessor in interest according to the plaintiffs are strangers to the suit plot having no right, title and interest over the same. The plaintiffs and proforma defendant no. 5 to 7 are the absolute owners of 15 decimal land in the suit plot as described in the schedule 'Ka' to the plaint. Lakshman Ch. Dey on the basis of the request of Bishnupada Dubey, Tarapada Dubey and Sottya Narayan Dubey the predecessor of the principal defendants in or about December, 1953, orally permitted the said persons to occupy 6 decimal of land on condition to leave th