Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 1740
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Uday Kumar, JJ
Aloke Haldar – Appellant
Versus
Rabi Sankar Shaw @ Ravi Shankar Shaw and others – Respondent
FA 210 of 2024
For the Appellant: Mr. Samiran Giri
For the Respondents: Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy, Mr. Sounak Mondal
Contradictory claims of tenancy and adverse possession are mutually exclusive, undermining a party's legal standing and leading to dismissal when evidence is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Eviction - The plea of tenancy and adverse possession cannot coexist; a plea of adverse possession must establish continuous, hostile possession to defeat true ownership - The trial court was justified in its decree for eviction where defendant's case was based on contradictory claims. (Paras 6-16)
(B) Legal Pleadings - Amendments to pleas should not introduce conflicting claims, as they undermine credibility - The defendant admitted true ownership while attempting to claim adverse possession, leading to dismissal of appeal for lack of merit. (Paras 14-18)
Facts of the case:
The defendant/appellant claimed to have possession of property through generational predecessors but contradicted the original defence of tenancy, claiming adverse possession without proper evidence.
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Judge found that the appellant could not prove adverse possession and ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s rights.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant had a prima facie case and the validity of contradictory pleas regarding tenancy and adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contradictory pleadings of tenancy and adverse possession cannot co-exist and ruled against the appellant due to failure to substantiate claims of adverse possession.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application procedures and stay of execution (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. hearing process bypassed for efficiency (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. contradictory claims of tenancy and possession (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. failure to prove adverse possession (Para 12 , 15) |
| 5. affirmation of trial court's decision (Para 14 , 17 , 18) |
Rabi Sankar Shaw @ Ravi Shankar Shaw and others For the appellant : Mr. Samiran Giri For the respondents : Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy, Mr. Sounak Mondal Heard on : 23.06.2025 Judgment on : 23.06.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
1. We find from the office report dated December 13, 2024 that Talabana of Rs.4/- along with written-up notice form has not been deposited by the appellant. However, in view of the appearance of all the respondents through their learned Advocate in court today, the requirement of putting in such Talabana and written-up notice form is dispensed with.
2. The applications are now taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
4. While hearing the application for stay, we find that the scope of the appeal is extremely brief. As such, instead of unnecessarily relegating the appeal to the paraphernalia of preparation of paper books and bringing of the trial court records, we choose to decide the appeal itself on merits along with the connected applications.
5. Upon such notice of hearing the appeal being given during hearing, we hear learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. The short question involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant has even a prima facie case for hearing of the appeal, since a mutually destructive plea of tenancy on the one hand and adverse possession on the other was sought to be made out by the defendant/appellant in hiswritten statement by way of amendment.
7. The initial plea of the defendant/appellant in his written statement was that the defendant is the “son of a tenant”. The defence case was premised on the alleged tenancy of the defendant’s grandfather under the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs/respondents. The defendant/appellant produced a purported rent receipt in the name of the said grandfather at the time of evidence. As per the original written statement, subsequent to the grandfather, the defendant’s father and uncle became tenants of the property.
8. An apparently contradictory plea has been set out in the original written statement to the effect that the defendant is a “son of a tenant” on the one hand and that the defendant is a co-tenant with his father and uncle on the other.
9. Not stopping there, the written statement was subsequently amended. 10. It will be relevant for the present purpose to quote paragraph no.12A of the amended written statement:
“12A: That the defendant is in possession of the suit property through his predecessors who was not a tenant nor equipped with any Rent Receipt following any privity of contract between the parties as Landlord and Tenant and thereby generation after generation for last more than 60 years, the defendant is in possession of the suit premises without having any valid legal status as tenant but for avoiding the legal consequence as to the claim as rank trespasser the defendant describe himself as tenant despite the real fact that neither he nor his predecessors was ever a tenant in the suit property equipped with any Rent Receipt issued by any owner of the suit property at any point of time as such the deposit of rent in the office of Rent Controller is equally not sustainable since a mere imagination.”
11. A bare reading of the said paragraph shows that admittedly the defendant (as opposed to the defendant along with his uncle and father) is in possession of the suit property “through his predecessors”. Thereafter, fatally to the original defence case, it is pleaded that the defendant/appellant’s predecessor was not a tenant nor equipped with any rent receipt following any privity of contract between the parties as landlord and tenant. It is
