S.A. No. 323 of 1983. Case: Kiriti Bhusan Shau Vs Jugal Chandra Shau. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | S.A. No. 323 of 1983 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sudhir Dasgupta, Amar Nath Shaw and Nabaroon Karak, Advs. and For Respondents: Shyam Prasanna Roy Chowdhury, R. Pushpendu Bikash Shau and Sudhakar Biswas, Advs. |
| Judges | Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 100, 115, Order 26 Rules 9, 10 |
| Citation | ILR 2001 (2) Cal 388 |
| Judgement Date | October 11, 2001 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.
-
This is an appeal by the Defendant No. 2 against a judgment of affirmance in a suit for declaration of title and for removal of encroachment.
-
Title Suit No. 166 of 1968 was instituted in the court of the learned Munsif, First Court at Midnapore by the Plaintiffs/Respondents for declaration of their title in respect of 13 decimals of land in plot Nos. 700 and 703 appertaining to R.S. Khatian No. 6863 of Mouza: Patna Bazar and for recovery of possession of 1 decimal encroached land. It is alleged that originally the suit properties belonged to Panchu Shau and on his death the said properties devolved upon his three sons, namely, Priyanath, Satish and Jaytindra. In the district settlement, the suit properties were correctly recorded in their names. On the death of Priyanath, his 1/3 share in the suit properties devolved upon his son, namely, Sudhir, Satish, Jaytindra and Sudhir executed a registered deed of partition on March 28, 1941 and the suit properties were allotted to Sudhir. The Plaintiffs purchased the said share of Sudhir from his widow. The Defendants were the owners of plot Nos. 701 and 702 which were situated to the contiguous south of plot No. 703. initially, there was a kuncha structure of the predecessors of the Plaintiffs over the plot No. 703 and, subsequently, the Plaintiffs have built a pucca house over the said plot of land. On plot Nos. 701 and 702, there was a kuncha house of the predecessors of the Defendants and, subsequently, they raised a pucca house and opened a window in the northern side of plot Nos. 701 and 702. Since the said opening of the window interfered with the privacy of the predecessors of the Plaintiffs, a dispute cropped up. Ultimately, however, the dispute was settled and as a part of settlement the predecessors of the Plaintiffs raised a boundary wall on the extreme southern part of their land. Subsequently, the predecessors of the Defendants left plot Nos. 701 and 702 and the kuncha house was collapsed. The mother of the Defendant No. 2 purchased the vacant land in plot Nos. 701 and 702 and constructed a kuncha house on the western side of lier land. The Defendants have demolished the said kuncha house and constructed a pucca house on the northern side of plot Nos. 701 and 702 and in the process encroached a small portion of plot No. 703. The Defendants have made further encroachment by constructing a C^f9l^(a raised terrace of a building) on the further north of their pucca house. Initially, the Defendants agreed to remove the encroachment and the Plaintiffs got the respective plots surveyed, which revealed encroachment of plot No. 703 by the construction of the Defendants. The Defendants tried further construction by raising wall over the C3Ht^ compelling the Plaintiffs to lodge complaints at the local police station. Ultimately, the present suit has been instituted for declaration of their title and for removal of the encroachment, shown by the red colour in the map attached to the plaint.
-
The Defendant No. 2 contested the suit and he alleged that he never encroached any portion of plot No. 703 and that the Defendants have constructed over the old existing plinth within plot Nos. 701 and 702. It was, also, contended that the Defendants have possessed the suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial