Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1145
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.
Krishna Kamal Goswami – Appellant
Versus
Deb Ratan Mallick @ Debobrate Mallick - Respondent
S.A. 59 of 2022
Decided On : 23-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Joyjit Roy Chowdhury Mr. Subhendu Bhattacharjee Ms. Priyanka Chunari Ms. Joyeeta Adhikary
For the Respondent: Ms. Deblina Lahiri Mr. Mrinmoy Chatterjee Ms. Moumita Sharma
IMPORTANT POINT
A suit for eviction cannot be dismissed solely due to misdescription if the property can be identified by boundaries or numbers.
Headnote:
Property - Eviction - Code of Civil Procedure - Sections 7, 20 - The court emphasized the necessity of clear property description in eviction suits, ruling that ambiguity in property identification does not invalidate a suit if the property can be identified by boundaries or numbers.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased land and was dispossessed by the respondent, who constructed a structure on the land. The appellant filed for eviction, which was initially granted by the trial court but reversed by the appellate court on grounds of misdescription and non-joinder of co-sharers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had established ownership and that the property was sufficiently described in the plaint. The appellate court's reversal was deemed unjustified as the suit property was identifiable despite the alleged ambiguities.
Issues: Whether the suit for recovery of possession can be dismissed solely on the grounds of misdescription of the property and non-joinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a property can be identified by boundaries or specific descriptions, and that minor defects in description do not invalidate a suit if the property is otherwise identifiable.
Result: The appeal is allowed, restoring the trial court's judgment and ordering the respondent to vacate the property.
JUDGMENT :
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Kalyani, Nadia in title Appeal No. 35 of 2014.
2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff before the Ld. Trial Court and the respondent before the Ld. First Appellate Court while the respondent herein was the defendant before the Ld. Trial Court and the appellant before the Ld. First Appellate Court.
3. Facts of the instant lis
The appellant herein had purchased 61.80 decimals of land by virtue of a deed of sale being No. 3049 executed on 30.03.2006 and since then had been possessing the said property. It has been stated that the respondent/defendant on 03.03.2011 and 04.06.2011 forcibly dispossessed the appellant/plaintiff from 2 cottahs of land mentioned in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint and has been depicted through a sketch map which has been mentioned in schedule ‘C’ of the plaint. After the aforementioned incident of dispossession of the appellant/plaintiff the respondent /defendant constructed a room having tile shed and since then the respondent/defendant is in possession in respect of the said 2 cottahs of land. This being the situation the appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit praying for eviction of the respondent/defendant, being a suit for eviction of trespasser bearing the no. Title Suit 94 of 2011.
The aforesaid title suit has been decreed by the Ld. Trial Court on contest.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial court the respondent /defendant had preferred an appeal being First Appeal bearing the No. Title Appeal 35 of 2014. The said First appeal was allowed by the Ld. First Appellate Court.
This setting aside of the judgment of the trial court and thus allowing the first appeal by the first appellate court has given rise to the instant second appeal.
4. Facts before the Trial Court:
The appellant/plaintiff instituted the instant lis by filing a plaint praying for decree of recovery of possession of the 2 cottahs of land, mentioned in the schedule ‘B’ and depicted in schedule ‘C’ of the plaint, by demolishing the illegal shop room raised by the respondent/ defendant.
The respondent/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.
ISSUES
1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and manner?
2. Has the plaintiff valid and proper cause of action to file this suit?
3. Has the plaintiff got any right, title, interest over the suit property?
4. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the decree as prayed for?
5. What other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to get as per law and equity?
Evidence was adduced on behalf of both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Two witnesses adduced evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and the original sale deed being No. 3409 of 2006 and series of rent receipts have been exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff.
On the behalf of the defendants three persons adduced evidence. Apart from oral evidence no documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the defendant. After scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence on record the Ld. Trial Judge decreed the suit on contest.
5. Facts before the First Appellate Court
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 35 of 2014. After hearing the parties the Ld. First Appellate court set aside the judgment of the Ld. Trial court on two grounds. Firstly on the ground of non-joinder of co-sharers and the other ground being defects as regards to description of the suit property.
6. Heard Mr. Joyjit Roy Chowdhury being assisted by Mr. Subhendu Bhattacharjee, Ms. Priyanka Chunari and Ms. Joyeeta Adhikary on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and also heard Ms. Deblina Lahiri being assisted by Mr. Mrinmoy Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent /defendant.
7. The Ld. Counsel
