Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 806
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J.
Jnanesh Chandra Dutta Roy @ Bablu Dutta & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Jyotish Chandra Dutta Roy & Ors. –Respondents
S.A.T. 78 of 2022 CAN 1 of 2022 with S.A.T. 80 of 2022
Decided on : 09-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shebati Datta, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Pinaki Brata Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Saumyajit Ghosal, Adv.
The benefits of the Refugee Rehabilitation Scheme extended to all members of the refugee family, including step-brothers who were living together and sharing a domestic relationship.
Headnote:
FAMILY - ALLOTMENT OF PROPERTY - REFUGEE REHABILITATION SCHEME - INTERPRETATION OF SCHEME - RIGHT TO POSSESSION - STEP-BROTHERS - FAMILY MEMBERS - PARAMOUNT TITLE HOLDER - STATE GOVERNMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, Jyotish Chandra Dutta Roy, Santosh Kumar Dutta Roy, and Priyo Sankar Dutta Roy, filed a Title Suit for declaration, injunction, and recovery of Khas possession against defendants Jnanesh Chandra Dutta Roy and Subhas Dutta Roy. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the full blood brothers and sons of Jogendra Chandra Dutta Roy, deceased, by his first wife, while the defendants were the step-brothers born to Jogendra Chandra Dutta Roy's second wife. The plaintiffs alleged that they were allotted the suit property by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department in 1950 and that their names were recorded as joint allottees along with the proforma defendant no. 3 in 1956. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that they were co-owners of the property and that the plaintiffs had manufactured or changed the records to delete the name of their mother. The Trial Court dismissed both suits, holding that the parties had not acquired any title in the property in the absence of a deed of gift.
Finding of the Court:
The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision and declared the plaintiffs' right to possess the suit property along with the proforma defendant no. 3. The defendants appealed to the High Court, arguing that they were entitled to the benefits of the Refugee Rehabilitation Scheme as family members of Jyotish Chandra Dutta Roy.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants, as step-brothers of the plaintiffs, were entitled to the benefits of the Refugee Rehabilitation Scheme as family members of Jyotish Chandra Dutta Roy? 2. Whether the plaintiffs had proved their case that they were the allottees of the suit property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the term 'family' in the Refugee Rehabilitation Scheme should be interpreted broadly to include step-brothers who were living together and sharing a domestic relationship. 2. The Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case that they were the allottees of the suit property, as they had not produced the letter of allotment or the register recording the names of the persons after physical verification in 1956.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, and restored the judgment of the Trial Court, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.
JUDGMENT :
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.:
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 302 of 2000. By the impugned judgment learned First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court dismissing the Title Suit No. 175 of 1982.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.
3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff Jyotish Chandra Dutta Roy, Santosh Kumar Dutta Roy, Priyo Sankar Dutta Roy filed Title Suit No. 75 of 1982 against the defendants Jnanesh Chandra Dutta Roy and Subhas Dutta Roy for declaration injunction and recovery of Khas possession. It is contended, inter alia, that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant no. 3 are the full blood brothers and sons of Jogendra Chandra Dutta Roy, since deceased, by his first wife. The mother of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant no. 3 died in the year 1944 and in the year 1945 Jogendra Chandra Dutta Roy married for the second time to one Smt. Bina Pani, mother of defendant nos. 1 and 2. Since the second marriage of their father put plaintiff no. 1 to a difficult situation, he left his house in the year 1949, came to India and started earning his bread on his own. In the year 1950 as displaced person, he was allotted the suit property by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department where upon the plaintiff no. 1 constructed a Kancha structure and started living therein along with his family members. Subsequently, within a year or two he brought his full blood brothers and sisters to him and severed all connection with his father, step-mother, step-brothers and step-sisters who were living in the then East Pakistan. Plaintiff no. 1 made his fortune and earned money through business. In the year 1950, the suit property was allotted in favour of the plaintiff no. 1. In the year 1956 final survey was held and on representation of the plaintiff no. 1 the names of his other brothers i.e. plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 were recorded together with proforma defendant no. 3 as the joint allottees in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs constructed a Pucca building replacing the portion of Kancha construction in the year 1968-69. On or about 1964-65 the plaintiffs came to know that defendant no. 2 was living in his maternal uncle’s house at Ranaghat in a very distress condition. He was 13-14 years of age. The plaintiff no. 1 brought him to his house. Father of the plaintiffs died in Bangladesh in the year 1972. All the brothers and sisters of defendant nos. 1 and 2 finally came to India as refugees and took refuge to a temporary camp in Meghalaya. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 requested the plaintiff no. 1 to allow him to stay in the suit house and out of pity and sympathy the plaintiffs allowed them to stay as licensee. The plaintiff no. 1 maintained them, helped the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to settle in life by doing business. Till 1980 they stayed together in the joint family though as licensee without license fee. Subsequently, after constructing his own house at 6A, North Road, Calcutta-32 the plaintiff no. 1 shifted there. On 29th November, 1982 the defendant nos. 1 and 2 made an unsuccessful attempt to construct a building after demolishing and removing the Kancha portion claiming themselves as co-sharers of the property in suit. Hence the license granted to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 was revoked. The plaintiff by filing this suit prayed for declaration of title in respect of suit property, decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the suit property and decree for recovery of Khas possession.
4. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material allegations made against them. According to defendants they are the co-owners of the property having equal share as that of the plaintiffs. The plainti
