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

The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya SA 22 OF 2023 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2023 Kishore Sangha an Association or Club Represented by Gourishankar Das & Ors.

Vs.

Sri Soumen Mukherjee & Ors.

For the Appellants : Mr. Ayan Banerjee Ms. Debasree Dhamali Ms. Riya Ghosh For the Respondents : Mr. Sambhunath De Mr. Ranjit Kumar Ghosh Delivered On : 27.02.2026 Supratim Bhattacharya, J.:

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant club being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed in Title Appeal No.105 of 2010 by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chandannagar, District Hooghly. Through the impugned judgment the First Appellate Court dismissed the title appeal without any order as to cost and thereby affirming the judgment delivered on 19.03.2010 by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court Chandannagar, passed in the Title Suit No. 62 of

1971.

2. Factual Matrix Before the Trial Court The original plaintiff namely Tarapada Mukherjee since deceased had filed a suit for declaration of title and for injunction before the 1st Court of Munsif, Chandannagar which was numbered as TS 62 of 1971.

Against the said plaint, two written statements were filed. One written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants No. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(d) namely Parbati Chandra Das, Kamal Kanti Banerjee and Bejoy Kumar Da and the other written statement was filed by Jyotindranath Tosh and Sudhanshu Rakshit.

On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and in law ?

ii) Is the suit barred by limitation ?

iii) Is the suit is barred by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence ?

iv) Is the suit barred by adverse possession for more than 12 years ?

v) Is the suit bad for defect of parties ?

vi) Is the suit barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act ?

vii) Is the suit barred by the provision of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?

viii) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for ?

ix) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to ?

x) Has the plaintiff any right, title and interest in the suit property?

xi) Has the defendant acquired any right, title and interest in the suit property by way of adverse possession ?

On behalf of the plaintiffs two witnesses deposed namely :-

PW1- Subhas Mukherjee PW2- Sukumar Chattopadhyay On behalf of the defendants five witnesses deposed : -

DW1- Parbati Chandra Das DW2- Pashupati Dey DW3 – Sudhangsu Rakshit DW4 – Md. Chand (employee of CMC)

DW5 – Quazi Md. Munir (Investigation Commissioner)

On behalf of the plaintiffs following documents have been exhibited:

Exhibit-1 : Certified copy of the auction bid dated 15th March, 1911 Exhibit-2 : Deed of Settlement being No. 2172 of 1989.

Exhibit-3 : LRROR in the name of the plaintiffs.

Exhibit- 4, 4(a) and 4(b) : Mutation certificates in the name of the plaintiffs.

Exhibit-5, 5(a) : Municipal tax receipts.

Exhibit-6, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c) and 6(d) : Government tax receipts issued in the name of the plaintiffs.

Exhibit-7, 7(a) : Letter issued by Mayor of CMC dated 16.07.91 and 24/26.7.99 Exhibit-8 : Certified copy of Amount Register of CMC Exhibit-9 : RS Porcha of the suit property.

Exhibit-10 : Municipal tax receipt of the suit property.

Exhibit-11 : Government rent receipt of the suit property.

Exhibit-12 : Notice dated 17.8.68 issued by CMC.

Exhibit-13 : Sheet Map of 3 No. Chandannagar Mouza.

On behalf of the defendants following documents have been exhibited :

Exhibit-A : Souvenir of the defendant Club of the year 1989.

Exhibit-B, B/1 : Copy of the letter dated 05.05.1969 with its receipt.

Exhibit-C,C/1 : Copy of the letter dated 10.05.1969 with its receipt.

Exhibit-D, D/1 : Copy of the letter dated 03.05.1969 with its receipt.

Exhibit-E, E/1, E/2 : Copy of the application dated 24.08.1968 Exhibit-F, F/1, F/2 : Copy of the application dated 07.01.1969 Exhibit-G : Report s