The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove transfer of interest and permissive possession, and the limitation on becoming an owner by adverse possession if possession is traced to a lawful title.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - (oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 30th June 2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur in the other appeal No. 74/2018, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. By the impugned judgment learned First Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and decree dated 7th December, 2017 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur in connection with Other Suit being No. 151/2017.

2. Plaintiffs case before the Trial Court in a nutshell is that suit property originally belong to Sisir Kumar Sahoo who transferred the suit property by way of registered deed of gift in favour of his wife Gita Rani Sahoo on 13.03.1991 and the name of said transferee Gita Rani Sahoo duly recorded in the L.R. Record of Rights and she also paid government rents. Said Gita Rani Sahoo is mother of both plaintiff and defendant. In 1997-1998 said Gita Rani Sahoo made addition alteration of the property. Defendant is running a grocery shop in the suit property subsequently said Gita Rani Sahoo had transferred suit property in favour of plaintiff on 12.12.2001 by a registered deed of gift Plaintiff use to run a hardware shop. Business of plaintiff has been flourished in the meantime and his shop in the suit house became in- sufficient to continue his business. The period of 3 years of license of the defendant has been expired in the meantime and on 25.05.2007 plaintiff terminated license granted to the defendants and asked him to vacate the said premises within one month. However, the defendant refused to vacate the suit property and as such said suit was filed.

3. Defendants case on the contrary is that Sisir Kumar Sahoo was medically unfit for 3 to 4 years prior to his death and he was not in a position to execute deed of gift in favour of his wife Gita Rani Sahoo and further case of the defendant is that mother of plaintiff fraudulently executed deed of gift in favour of plaintiff and for which defendant/appellant has filed a separate suit being T.S. 234/2014 for cancellation of said deed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur which is still pending. Accordingly, defendants contention is that deed executed by Sisir Kuamr Sahoo in favour of Gita Rani Sahoo is void and illegal and deed was not executed voluntarily and said deed of gift never acted upon. Moreover, the subsequent deed executed by Gita Rani Sahoo in favour of plaintiff is also a void deed. In addition to that defendant is running business in the suit premises since 1990 and therefore he has acquired title in the suit property by way of adverse possession also and accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court has framed five issues during trial. Original registered deed of gift in favour of plaintiff for the year 2001 is marked as Exhibit 5. Plaintiff himself deposed as PW1 and he has also brought his mother Gita Rani Sahoo as PW2 and another witness Soumen Pal has deposed on behalf of the plaintiff as PW3. On the contrary defendant has brought as many as Five witnesses and he has filed miscellaneous receipt and fees paid to Municipality as well as certificate of enlistment, electric bill etc which are marked as exhibits on behalf of defendant.

5. The Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence and documents as submitted by both the parties came to the finding that defendant has miserably failed to prove his case of family settlement or that he has acquired title in the suit property by way of adverse possession. On the contrary plaintiff has clearly proved his right title in the suit property. Moreover Exhibit 5, i.e. the deed of gift by which plaintiff acquired title in the suit property has not been declared as null and void by any competent court of law and the license granted to defendant has expired by lapse of time and as such learned trial court passed decree of decl