Partly allowed

Abdus Samad & Ors. v. Abdul Aziz & Ors.

Calcutta HC28 Mar 2023FA/348/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regarding CAN 9 of 2025, the court dismissed the application for return of title deeds as the applicant was not a witness. Regarding CAN 8 of 2024, the court directed respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

CAN 9 of 2025 dismissed; CAN 8 of 2024 made returnable after three weeks with direction to file affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks.

Abdus Samad & Ors. Vs Abdul Aziz & Ors. — Partition | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

Item No.- 39 29.01.2025 Rohan Court No. 8

¶2

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

FA 348 OF 2013 with

¶4

I.A. No.: CAN 8 of 2024 I.A. No.: CAN 9 of 2025

¶5

Abdus Samad & Ors. Versus Abdul Aziz & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mandal, Mr. Abhirup Haldar

¶7

… for the appellants

¶8

Mr. Suprobhat Bhattacharya, Mr. Md. Habibur Rahman

¶9

… for the respondent No. 40

¶10

In Re.: CAN 9 of 2025

¶11

This is an application at the behest of the defendant No. 40 in the partition suit seeking the return of the original title deed of the applicant marked as exhibit therein upon furnishing the photocopy thereof.

¶12

The objection is raised by the counsel for the appellants that the purpose for which the said document is sought to be handed over to the applicant would create a further anomalous situation and will invite multiple proceedings amongst the parties.

¶13

We had an occasion to peruse the records arrived to this Court wherefrom it appears that only seven persons stood as witnesses for and on behalf of the defendants in the partition suit. The name of the applicant does not find place in the record as witness. Several deeds have been exhibited in the said suit for and on behalf of the defendants and logically, it infer

¶14

¶15

that those title deeds were tendered by the witnesses at the time of their depositions.

¶16

The applicant never stood as a witness and, therefore, there is no occasion to tender any such deed by him to be received in evidence or to be marked exhibit. The documents which are marked exhibits in the proceedings can only be returned to a person who tendered at the time of the deposition and cannot be given to a person from whose custody the said documents did not come. Since the applicant never stood as a witness and, therefore, did not tender any such deed to be received in evidence or to be marked exhibit, it is not desirable that the document which was in possession of another person be given to the applicant.

¶17

The application being CAN 9 of 2025 is dismissed .

¶18

No order as to cost.

¶19

In Re.: CAN 8 of 2024

¶20

After perusal of the averments as well as the prayer made therein, we feel that an opportunity should be given to the contesting respondents in the instant appeal to disclose their stand in the form of affidavit.

¶21

Accordingly, let the affidavit-in-opposition to the said application be filed by the respondents within two weeks from date.

¶22

Reply, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.

¶23

The application is made returnable after three weeks.

¶24

(HARISH TANDON, J)

¶25

(PRASENJIT BISWAS, J)

Abdus Samad & Ors. v. Abdul Aziz & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdus Samad & Ors. v. Abdul Aziz & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Visva-Bharati Vs Dr. (Mrs.) Tanuka Das and Ors.

The Visva-Bharati Vs Dr. Atanu Sasmal and Ors.

Union of India Vs Sri Nripendra Kumar Nandi

Rina Mandal and Ors. in Place of Sujit Mondal(Since Deceased) Vs Subhas Chandra Roy and Ors.

Khairun Bibi Vs Subhas Chandra Roy & Ors.

Dr. Nasim Akter Vs Aminul Islam & Ors.