Nazemul Haque & Anr. Vs Sabunnessa Bibi & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Nazemul Haque & Anr. Vs Sabunnessa Bibi & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether any substantial question of law is involved warranting admission of the second appeal. +4 more

Court's answer

Upon hearing learned Counsel for the appellants, the Bench opined that no substantial questions of law are involved.

Ratio / Principle

The view taken by the courts below in respect of possession (deemed possession of the plaintiffs through the appellants as co-sharers) is one of the plausible views accepted in law.

Key takeaways

On limitation, the courts below proceeded on the premise of the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint and held the suit was filed within time; this Court did not disturb that basis.ratio¶17
Both courts below arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the property comprised not only agricultural land but also vita and water bodies.ratio¶18
Because the property included non-agricultural elements (vita and water bodies), declaring the plaintiffs' title on the strength of title deeds does not amount to sitting in judgment over the findings of the Revenue Officer under Section 14T(3).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal SA 90 of 2018 (Nazemul Haque & Anr. v. Sabunnessa Bibi and Ors.), decided 12.11.2024, dismissed at the admission stage under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of a substantial question of law. The Bench held the courts below's view on possession — plaintiffs not in physical possession, with the appellants' possession deemed to be the plaintiffs' as co-sharers inter se — to be one of the plausible views accepted in law. On limitation, the courts below had proceeded on the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint and held the suit within time. The contention that the Civil Courts sat in judgment over a final decision under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was rejected: both courts below concurrently found the property comprised not only agricultural land but also vita and water bodies, so the title declaration on the strength of title deeds did not amount to sitting in judgment over the Revenue Officer's findings. The appellants' Order XLI Rule 27 CPC application (newly noticed facts: Habinunnesa Bibi's two sons, Sayad Abul Fazal and Sayed Abul Bazal, and the latter's Deed of Sale) was refused: Abul Bazal's statement in his Sale Deed does not bind his brother Abul Fazal, father of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, and allowance of the application would neither substantially affect the outcome nor alter the plaintiffs' shares. All raised questions were characterized as primarily factual or at best mixed, not pure questions of law. Connected applications CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No: CAN 9468 of 2017), CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 2306 of 2018), CAN 3 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 3234 of 2018), CAN 4 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 8732 of 2018) and CAN 5 of 2021 were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

AD-2 Ct No.16 12.11.2024 (SSS)

SA 90 of 2018

With IA No: CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No: CAN 9468 of 2017) With CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 2306 of 2018) With CAN 3 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 3234 of 2018) With CAN 4 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 8732 of 2018) With CAN 5 of 2021

Nazemul Haque & Anr. Vs.

Sabunnessa Bibi and Ors.

Mr. Sourav Sen, Ms. Adrisnata Chakraborty, Mr. Muhammad Obaid, Advs.

……For the Appellants/Petitioners.

Mr. Tanmay Mukherjee,

Mr. Atish Ghosh,

Ms. Antara Dey, Advs.

…..For the Respondent No. 1.

Upon hearing learned Counsel for the appellants, we are of the opinion that no substantial questions of law are involved.

One of the grounds argued by the learned Advocate for the appellants is that although it was held by the

2

courts below that the plaintiffs/respondents are not in physical possession of the property, the possession of the defendants/appellants was deemed to be the possession of the plaintiffs as well, in view of them being co-sharers inter se .

That apart, the question of limitation is sought to be urged.

However, we find that the view taken by the courts below in respect of possession is one of the plausible views accepted in law. In so far as limitation is concerned, the courts proceeded on the premise of the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint and held that the suit was filed within time.

That apart, learned Counsel for the appellants urges seriously the issue of the Civil Courts apparently sitting in judgment over a final decision under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. However, both the courts below arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the property comprised of not only agricultural land, but also vita and water bodies.

As such, on the strength of title deeds, the title of the plaintiffs/respondents was declared, which does not amount to sitting in judgment over the findings of the Revenue Officer.

The appellants also move an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where it has been pleaded that subsequently, it came to the notice

3

of the appellants that one Habinunnesa Bibi had two sons, namely Sayad Abul Fazal and Sayed Abul Bazal and that Sayed Abul Bazal executed a Deed of Sale from which it transpires that the share in the property pleaded by the plaintiffs was not correct.

However, in the event the said fact is to be considered at this juncture, it would open up a Pandora’s box of new facts. That apart, Abul Bazal’s statement in a Sale Deed executed by him does not bind Abul Fazal, his brother, who was the father of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and as such, it cannot be said that the said application, even if allowed, would have substantial effect on the outcome of the litigation or alter the shares of the plaintiffs as found by the Courts below.

Moreover, all the above questions are primarily questions of fact or at best mixed questions of fact and law and not pure questions of law.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law has been made out for admission of the appeal.

Accordingly, SA 90 of 2018 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. All connected applications bearing CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No: CAN 9468 of 2017), CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 2306 of 2018), CAN 3 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 3234 of 2018),CAN 4 of 2018 (Old No: CAN 8732 of 2018)

4

and CAN 5 of 2021 stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Uday Kumar, J.)