##PAGE1##

13th May,

2026

(AK)

06

SAT 43 of 2026

IA No: CAN 1 of 2026

Saraswati Das and others

VS

Shib Narayan Das and another

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy

Mr. Shibaji Das

….for the appellants.

Mr. Kushal Chatterjee

Mr. Oishik Chatterjee

...for the respondent no.1.

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on

record.

2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment of

affirmance whereby both the courts granted an

eviction decree against the appellants on the

ground that the appellants are licensees in respect

of the suit property.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the

suit being in the nature of a declaration of title of

the plaintiff, it was the burden on the plaintiff to

prove his title.

4. In the absence of any such document, apart from

certain records of rights, which are not documents

of title, the learned courts below, it is contended,

erred in law in decreeing the suit for eviction.

5. Learned counsel further argues that the

defendants/appellants sought to produce before

the appellate court suit registers to indicate that

2

one Mr. Routh had filed a suit against the

recorded owners, thus casting a shadow of doubt

on the records of rights relied on by the plaintiffs.

6. It is contended that the plaintiff/respondent no.1

also failed to prove the induction of the appellants

as licensees to the suit property.

7. The appellants argue that since the appellants take

the plea that they are co-owners of the suit

property, claiming through the common ancestor

of the parties, in the absence of any title deed

being produced by the plaintiff to show their

exclusive title, the courts below ought not to have

granted the eviction decree.

8. However, it is well-settled that in a suit for eviction

of licensee, the plaintiff is merely to prove better

title than the defendant.

9. In the absence of any specific relief of declaration of

title being sought, the plaintiff is not required to

prove to the hilt the title of the plaintiff to the suit

property.

10. In the present suit, which was merely for eviction

of licensee, the plaintiff/respondent no.1

produced and exhibited documents, including

extracts from the records of rights, municipal tax

receipts and khajna receipts as well as other

similar documents to establish that the suit

property was recorded in the name of the mother

3

of the plaintiff/respondent no.1, through whom

they claim title.

11. On the other hand, the defendants/appellants

could not bring on record any specific document

to show that either their names or their mother’s

name was recorded in respect of the subject

property.

12. Although the father of both the parties was

common, the inception of claim of title as per the

plaint case started from the mother of the

plaintiff/respondent no.1 and it was not the plaint

case that their father was the original owner

through whom the mother claimed, in which event

the defendants/appellants still might have

maintained a claim through their mother.

13. Since the documents regarding the property stand

in the name of the plaintiff’s mother, both the

courts below proceeded on the premise that better

title has been proved by the plaintiff, which is

sufficient, in our opinion, in a suit for eviction of

licensee.

14. In such a suit, unless the defendants establish

their right either as tenants or as owners of the

said property, the inevitable conclusion would be

that they are either trespassers or licensees.

15. Therefore, even if no proof of grant of licence or

induction of the defendants as licensees was

furnished in the trial court, the law would

4

presume, in the absence of anything to the

contrary, that the defendants did not have any

legal right to stay on at the suit premises.

16. The effect would be similar whether the

defendants were licensees or trespassers, being

that filing of an eviction suit by a better title-

holder would suffice to grant such decree.

17. Inasmuch as the reliance of the

defendants/appellants on the relevant extracts of

the cross-examination of PW1 is concerned, the

same does not make a difference as PW1 mer