Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.
Goutam Dutt - Appellant
Versus
Namita Busfore & Kumari Rumpa Busfore – Respondent
FMA 569 of 2022 With CAN 4 of 2024
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Key Points: - The trial court held that the plaintiff has absolute and exclusive right, title and interest in the suit property and was entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendants because their license had been revoked by the plaintiff on 11.03.2012. (!) (!) - The learned trial judge decreed the suit, directing the defendants to quit, vacate and deliver the property within 30 days and to remove all personal effects, and prohibited them from locking the premises. (!) (!) - The First Appellate Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case to the trial court on open remand for further evidence and amendment of pleadings, citing the need to determine the vesting of the land and the participation of the State of West Bengal as a necessary party. (!) (!) - The appellate judgment identified the core issues in the suit: maintainability, limitation, ownership, adverse possession, licensee status, relief entitlement, and other matters. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court confirmed that the plaintiff’s licensee status was contingent on express permission and that the plaintiff could revoke such permission without notice, resulting in the defendants’ unlawful occupation. (!) (!) - The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the trial court’s findings on ownership and eviction while affirming that the First Appellate Court’s remand was unnecessary and incorrect. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.
1. The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Jhargram Paschim Medinipur on 18.01.2018 in Title Appeal No. 7 of 2015. Through the said order, the learned Additional District Judge has passed the following:
“Hence it is Ordered
That instant Title Appeal being no. 07/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest but without costs. The impugned judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 46/2012 by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur on 26/02/2015 is hereby set aside. Let the suit be remanded before the Ld. Court below on open remand and the Ld. Court below will give opportunity to both the parties to amend their pleadings, if any, and to adduce further evidence if so prays by any party and to dispose of the suit without being influenced by the observations made in the body of the judgment as, expeditiously as possible.
Let the copy of this judgment be sent down along with the LCR to the Ld. Court below immediately for his information.”
2. Factual matrix of the case
Before the Trial Court
The plaintiff who is the appellant herein namely Sri Goutam Dutt instituted the suit for eviction of licensees against both the defendants who are the respondents herein namely Namita Busfore and Kumari Rumpa Busfore before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Jhargram. The said suit has been numbered as Other Suit No. 46 of 2012.
Through the plaint the appellant who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court, has stated that the property once upon a time belonged to the Jhargram Electric Supply Company Ltd..
The plaintiff and his brother namely Kunal Dutt purchased the property from the Jhargram Electric Supply Company Ltd. through a registered deed of sale which was registered on 12.06.1962 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Jhargram, being No. 6010 for the year 1962.
The plaintiff along with his brother became joint owners of the entire property and thereafter they made amicable partition of the said property by virtue of a deed of partition registered on 18.11.1978, in the office of the Registrar of Assurance, Calcutta. By virtue of the said partition the property got assigned in favour of the plaintiff and his brother namely Kunal Dutt and thus they became absolute owners of their respective shares.
Thereafter the plaintiff constructed a bungalow on the land assigned to him by virtue of partition. It has further been stated that after construction of the said bungalow it was found that for convenience of possession more land was necessary as a result the elder brother of the plaintiff voluntarily out of natural love and affection transferred 600 sq. ft. of land from his share in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of a deed of gift dated 28.04.2000 which was registered in the office of the Additional Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata on 06.11.2000. The plaintiff had accepted the gift and the same has been acted upon. After execution of the said deed of gift both the plaintiff and his brother namely Kunal Dutt became entitled to 3600 sq. ft. of land each.
It was further been stated that the said bungalow which was constructed by the plaintiff used to remain vacant and locked for most part of the year. At that point of time one young man of the locality namely Shibram Busfore requested the plaintiff to allow him to sleep in the ante room and in lieu thereof he agreed to keep watch of the said bungalow, there was nothing to disagree on behalf of the plaintiff. It has further been stated that Shibram had his own house at Kadamkanan in Jhargram town where he used to live with his widowed mother and other members of his family. After the demise of his mother Shibram got the job of his mother as sweeper on compassionate ground in cooperative management training institute at Ghora Dhara in Jhargram. It has further been stated that thereafter Shibram got marr
Owner's right to evict licensees prevails over licensee claims to occupancy, especially when the owner's license revocation is communicated, necessitating evidence of ownership clarity.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that tenants are estopped from denying the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and Section 106 of the T.P. Act.
A dismissal of an earlier suit without merit does not preclude subsequent claims; the plea of adverse possession admits the owner's title.
The court emphasized the importance of clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions for the exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and highlighted the principle that possession ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
