Dismissed¶17

Fulmala Mistry v. Suklal Biswas and Ors.

Calcutta HC26 Aug 2025FAT/52/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of 68-day delay; memorandum of appeal; FAT 52 of 2025 appeal dismissed; title cloud over Bhavesh Ch. Biswas, claimed original vendor; appellant was defendant; defendants' counter-claim; plaintiff did not contest suit; plaintiff's admission of acquiring title of Bhavesh insufficient; RS parcha not a document of title; tracing out title; liberty to file fresh suit; Soumen Sen, J.; Apurba Sinha Ray, J.; advocates Partha Pratim Roy, Sarbananda Sanyal, Samrat Chakraborty for appellant.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 68 days in presenting the memorandum of appeal condoned (CAN 2 of 2025 disposed of); notwithstanding dismissal, the appellant remains free to file a fresh suit claiming title upon establishing Bhavesh Ch. Biswas's right by producing documents showing tracing out of title. ¶17

Fulmala Mistry Vs Suklal Biswas and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 68 days in preferring the appeal (application CAN 2 of 2025 for condonation of delay) should be condoned. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

There is a cloud regarding the acquisition of title by Bhavesh Ch. Biswas, who claimed to be the original vendor; so long as the title of Bhavesh is not established, the present appellant's claim of title to the property cannot be established.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Sufficient cause having been shown for the inability to file the memorandum of appeal within the time of limitation, the delay of 68 days in presenting the memorandum of appeal is condoned.

¶10

Key takeaways

The plaintiff's mere admission that it acquired title of Bhavesh does not make Bhavesh the original owner, since the basis of the claim of ownership is an RS parcha, which is not a document of title.ratio¶16
On these considerations, the appeal and the application stand dismissed.ratio¶17
The dismissal does not prevent the appellant from filing a fresh suit claiming title of the property upon establishing the right of Bhavesh by producing the relevant documents to show tracing out of title.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Fulmala Mistry v. Suklal Biswas & Ors. (FAT 52 of 2025, with CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2025): (i) CAN 2 of 2025 — Condonation of delay: the 68-day delay in presenting the memorandum of appeal was condoned on showing of sufficient cause, and the application was disposed of. (ii) FAT 52 of 2025 — Appeal dismissed: the appellant, formerly a defendant whose side had contested the suit by counter-claim asserting ownership of the property through Bhavesh Ch. Biswas (claimed original vendor) on the basis of a document of the plaintiff filed before the learned Trial Court — the plaintiff not having contested the suit — could not establish title, because the title of Bhavesh himself is clouded; until Bhavesh's title is established, the appellant's claim cannot stand. The plaintiff's admission that it acquired title of Bhavesh does not make Bhavesh the original owner, the claimed basis being an RS parcha, which is not a document of title. The appeal and application were dismissed, but the order does not preclude a fresh suit by the appellant upon establishing Bhavesh's right by producing documents tracing out title. Bench: Soumen Sen, J. and Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

Fulmala Mistry v. Suklal Biswas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fulmala Mistry v. Suklal Biswas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajkali Debi Vs Deep Narayan Shaw

Indian Trading Oil Company Vs Bhuramal Jain

Susama Rani Ghosh Vs Aparna Rani Ghosh

Jairun Bibi and Ors. Vs Amina Bibi and Ors.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Archana Sen and Ors.

Dr. Nasim Akter Vs Aminul Islam & Ors.