IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi F.A. 225 of 2000 With CAN 1 of 1997 (Old CAN 2525 of 1997) CAN 2 of 1998 (Old CAN 4967 of 1998) CAN 3 of 2000 (Old CAN 6409 of 2000) CAN 4 of 2005 (Old CAN 1738 of 2005) CAN 5 of 2005 (Old CAN 1739 of 2005) CAN 6 of 2011 (Old CAN 1665 of 2011)

CAN 8 of 2014 (Old CAN 11983 of 2014)

With F.M.A. 68 of 2001 With CAN 1 of 1997 (Old CAN 2011 of 1997) CAN 2 of 2013 (Old CAN 6752 of 2013)

CAN 3 of 2014 (Old CAN 11984 of 2014)

Govinda Krishna Gupta & Others Vs.

Siba Pada Das & Others For the Appellants : Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Somali Mukhopadhyay, Adv.

Ms. S. Das, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Saptansu Basu, Adv.

Mr. Gopal Pahari, Adv. Ms. Piyali Kulari, Adv.

Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Adv.

Heard on : 18.02.2025 Judgment on : 25.04.2025 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeals at the behest of the plaintiffs/defendants is directed against a common Judgment and Decree dated December 13, 1996 passed by learned Judge, VIIth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1691 of 1975 and Misc. Judicial Case No. 370 of 1980.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, learned trial Court dismissed the Title Suit No. 1691 of 1975 as well as Misc. Judicial Case No. 370 of 1980.

3. The facts giving rise to the present lis are, in a nutshell, that the suit premises being 11A and 11B, Bow Street, Calcutta, consisting of a partly three storied partly four storied building containing big gates, yard, boundary wall and 30 numbers of big and small rooms situated over an area admeasuring 6 Cottas of land, were owned by the plaintiff. The building contained two distinct wings, the western bloc and eastern bloc connected by a common stair case. The western portion of the suit building at 11A and 11B, Bow Street, Calcutta, comprising of 20 big and small rooms is the subject matter of the present proceeding.

4. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the western portion of the suit premises was the subject matter of a mortgage in the form of a registered sale deed dated September 20, 1972 together with separate agreement for reconveyance of the suit premises upon payment of the entire consideration money along with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum thereon, to be paid within 3 years from the date of the sale deed. The plaintiffs had come up with a case that the aforesaid transaction of sale was effected without any consideration actually paid taking advantage of the physical condition of the plaintiff and upon practice of fraud upon such plaintiffs. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the transaction of sale effected by the sale deed dated September 20, 1972 was null and void and also vitiated by fraud as no consideration money was passed.

5. The plaintiff also pleaded that defendant no. 1 was newly recruited advocate and used to reside in tenanted premises at Hidaram Banerjee Lane with his wife i.e. defendant no. 2. The said accommodation was not at all sufficient for the couple.

6. It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 3 had a small ancestral building at the crossing of Vivekananda Road and Central Avenue. In 1962, he was introduced with the defendant no. 3 since the plaintiff was searching for suitable house to purchase. Since thereafter, the defendant no. 3 used to visit the chamber of the plaintiff often. In early 1970 the plaintiff fell ill and developed a mental debility resulting in loss of his general ability. Taking advantage of the physical inability of the plaintiff, the defendants conspired together to play fraud upon the plaintiff.

7. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendants in a conspiracy, brought a fake Income Tax officer to his chamber and on the pretext of hosing of a proposed income tax proceeding allegedly proposed against the plaintiff, extracted ₹3,500/- from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 asked for a further loan of ₹5,000/