Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar SAT No. 156 of 2023 Sri Lakshmi Kanta Das Vs.

Sri Satyendra Nath Mahato and others With SAT No. 157 of 2023 Sri Brihaspati Mahato Vs.

Smt. Bimala Mahato @ Bimalabala Mahato and others For the appellants : Mr. Amitava Mukherjee, Ms. Arpita Saha, Ms. Antara Das For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Mr. Dyutimoy Pal, Ms. Mayuri Ghosh, Mr. Tirthankar Nandi, Mr. Pratik Acharjee Heard on : 11.03.2025 Judgment on : 11.03.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against a judgment of reversal.

2. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1, which decision was reversed by the first appellate court.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argues that in the teeth of the specific findings of the learned Trial Judge that the plots mentioned in the title deed produced by the plaintiff did not tally with the suit property, the learned Appellate Judge arrived at a perverse finding in holding that the suit plot was identifiable and demarcated.

4. It is argued that it was an admitted position by the plaintiff that the specific suit plot was not mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff, for which on the said count alone, the suit deserves to be dismissed irrespective of the defence taken by the defendant/appellant.

5. It is argued that the learned Appellate Judge did not advert to such facets of the case at all.

6. Secondly, it is contended that the appellant sufficiently proved his case of adverse possession from the year 1965 by oral evidence which was un- rebutted by any proof of title on the part of the plaintiff/respondent no.1. As such, the decision of the learned First Appellate Judge is tainted by patent error of law.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant cites a judgment of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others, reported at (2019) 8 SCC 729 as well as an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (D) By LRS. Vs. O.V. Narasimha Setty (D) by LRS., in support of his arguments.

8. Upon hearing learned senior counsel for the appellant, we find from the records that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter.

9. Although the learned Trial Judge had observed that there was a mistake in mention on the plot numbers in the title deed of the plaintiff, in the same breath, it was observed that the mistake in the title deed (Exhibit-6) is not so palpable that a prudent man cannot possibly have any doubt as to what the parties to the suit wanted to mean.

10. Coupled with the said findings, it is seen that the learned First Appellate Judge categorically adverted to the said document and observed that the suit plot was very much identifiable. In the pleadings, the defendant had admitted that the suit plot belonged to one Jhargram Raja Narsingha Malla, who on January 4, 1947 granted patta in favour of the Jhargram Paper Mills Private Limited, whose name was recorded in the RS Khatian No.282/1, which is the suit plot. The said Jhargram Paper Mill Private Limited sold and transferred 1.44 acres of land by way of registered sale deed on April 4, 1966 in favour of Sudhangshu Kumar Roy, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff.

11. In the said perspective, the learned First Appellate Judge held that the area of

66 decimals claimed by the plaintiff is demarcated, as apparent from the sale deed dated March 24, 2000 and, as such, there was no question of the suit plot not being identifiable in the teeth of Exhibit-3.

12. On the other hand, the concurrent finding of both the courts below is that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession, which is the sole basis of the defence case. It is also found from the judgments of the trial court as well as the firs