Remanded

Nirmal Kumar Roy v. Mukul Chandra Roy and Ors.

Calcutta HC29 Jun 2022SAT/392/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal held that the lower appellate court failed to give adequate reasons for finding the appellants as licensees rather than co-sharers. The bench set aside the impugned judgment and decree, remanded the appeal to the first appellate court for a fresh hearing with additional powers, and dismissed a connected stay application.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the judgment and decree dated 29th July, 2019; remanded to the 1st Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh within three months.

Nirmal Kumar Roy Vs Mukul Chandra Roy and Ors. — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

16 29.6.2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

SAT 392 of 2019 With CAN 1 of 2019(Old No. CAN 10820 of 2019) With CAN 2 of 2020(Old No. CAN 494 of 2020)

¶3

Nirmal Kumar Roy

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Mukul Chandra Roy And Ors.

¶6

Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari Mr. Rajlakshmi Ghatak Mr. Aniruddha Tewari …. For the Appellant.

¶7

Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya …. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶8

Re: CAN 2 of 2020(Old No. CAN 494 of 2020)

¶9

The application CAN 2 of 2020(Old No. CAN 494 of 2020) be struck off from the list as it is already disposed of.

¶10

Receiving very fair assistance from Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3/plaintiff, we are able to dispose of this second appeal today, after dispensing with all formalities.

¶11

S.D.

¶12

Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, learned advocate for the appellant took us through the finding of the learned trial judge that his client, the defendant in the suit was a co-sharer defendant no. 1 of the subject property and thus could not be treated as a licensee under the respondents.

¶13

The relationship being such, the appellant could

¶14

¶15

not be evicted by the respondents in the same way licensee can be evicted.

¶16

However, on appeal the appellate court made an observation that the parties were co-sharers but proceeded to make a finding that the respondents were the exclusive owners of the said property. Being such, the appellant was residing in the property as a licensee and could be evicted by revocation of the licence. The appellate court reversed the decree of the learned trial judge.

¶17

We find that the appellate court has not given adequate reasons in support of its finding that the respondents became the absolute owner of the subject property and that the appellant was residing in that property as a licensee.

¶18

In such circumstances, it would be just and proper if the entire matter was remanded to the 1^st Appellate Court, by setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29^th July, 2019 by directing that the said court decides the appeal afresh on the available evidence by hearing the parties, by a reasoned order within three months of communication of this order.

¶19

We order accordingly.

¶20

We also clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are kept open before the said court.

¶21

¶22

Furthermore, it would be open to the Court to exercise all powers available to it under Order XLI, of the Code of Civil Procedure including the power to receive additional evidence.

¶23

The appeal SAT 392 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Since the judgement and decree under appeal has been set aside the execution of the same does not and cannot arise. Hence the connected application CAN 1 of 2019(Old No. CAN 10820 of 2019) praying for stay of execution is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

( I.P. Mukerji, J.)

¶26

(Subhendu Samanta,J.)

¶27

Nirmal Kumar Roy v. Mukul Chandra Roy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar Roy v. Mukul Chandra Roy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upendra Choudhury Vs M/S J K Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Future Retail Limited and Anr. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Tushar Karfa Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Smt Rinku Jaiswal and Ors. Vs Sambhunath Tiwari and Anr.

Vikash Kumar Sahu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hasibul Haque Vs the C.B.I.