In a property dispute, the plaintiff must disclose all material facts, implead all necessary parties, and seek further relief if available, failing which the suit may be dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. - Judgment and decree dated 30.8.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court, Asansol in Title Suit No. 103 of 2014 (226 of 2013) are under challenge in this instant appeal. By the judgment and decree impugned, the learned Court below dismissed the suit being a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and alternatively for partition and also for other allied reliefs.

2. Sans unnecessary details, facts required to be adumbrated for the purpose of disposal of the appeal are :

a) Suit property, as claimed by the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), is his ancestral property and names of his predecessors were duly recorded in C.S. R-O-R and he acquired absolute ownership thereof by way of inheritance;

b) In 1962, by virtue of one registered deed of sale vide. No. 6470, he sold out 21/2 dec. of land from the suit property to defendant/respondent nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to the respondents) and there was a shop room in the suit property in which the respondents were inducted as monthly tenants by his predecessor and in 1990, the respondents sought for permission from plaintiff to renovate the tenanted shop room at their cost which would be adjusted with monthly rent and such permission was accorded and cost of such renovation was finally adjusted in December, 2012 but thereafter, respondents failed and neglected to pay monthly rent since January, 2013 and then in the last week of April, 2012, the respondents started claiming that the appellant had sold out the shop room to them and they have acquired absolute ownership over the said shop room;

c) Upon close scrutiny of the certified copy of the deed of 1962, the appellant came to learn that there was a mistake in the butted and bounded portion mentioned in the deed. The appellant had in fact sold out only 21/2 dec. from plot no. 8 and the said shop room is located in plot no. 8/566 and taking advantage of such mistake, the respondents in connivance with the proforma respondents got their names mutated in L.R.R-O-R in respect of plot nos. 8, 8/566 and 8.567 beyond their share since the respondents have never acquired any right, title, interest and possession in the plot nos. 8/566 or 8/567. The respondents thereafter sought to make construction encroaching the 'B' schedule property and as the appellant felt inconvenience in possessing and enjoying jointly with the respondents, he was forced to file the suit seeking a decree of declaration that the appellant has 85% share whereas the respondents have only 14.5% share in 'A' schedule property and that the appellant is the absolute owner of 'B' schedule property and a decree of permanent injunction and alternatively partition and other consequential reliefs were also sought for;

d) The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it was specifically contended that R.S. plot no. 566 is part and parcel of C.S. plot no. 8 and plot no. 566 originally belonged to appellant and his mother, Domini Das and they sold out 21/2 dec. along with a tile shaded room standing thereon to Maya Ram Saraf, since deceased from plot no. 566 by virtue of registered deed of sale being no. 6470 of 1962 with a specific boundary therein;

e) In R.S. operation, C.S. plot no. 8 was divided into three plots namely, plot nos. 8, 8/566 and 8/567 and it was claimed that the respondents have been running jewellery business in the tile shaded room facing Jamuria Road which falls within the purchased portion of Maya Ram Saraf;

f) It was contended that the appellant was not in possession of that shop room which was renovated in 1990 by the respondents and appellant did not raise any objection to such renovation work and appellant is estopped from challenging the boundary portion of the deed;

g) State respondents being the proforma respondents left the action undefended from their end and they did not file any written statement.

3. Record speaks that upon pleadi