Dismissed¶16

Joydeb Kayal and Ors. v. Probir Kr Pal @ Prabir Kumar Pal and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Apr 2025SAT/60/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal (SAT 60 of 2025) with CAN 1 of 2025 dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC; no substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact of courts below affirmed; no factual or legal error; contradictory and mutually exclusive reliefs - declaration of title by title deed and adverse possession, alternatively recovery of possession; suit pond; plaintiffs failed to prove possession; defendants' rent receipts and documents exhibited proving possession and rent payment; no order as to costs; Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. and Uday Kumar, J.; decided 08.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the second appeal and the connected application (CAN 1 of 2025) were dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶16

Joydeb Kayal and Ors. Vs Probir Kr Pal @ Prabir Kumar Pal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

AD- 27 Ct No.16 08.04.2025 (SSS)

¶2

SAT 60 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025

¶3

Joydeb Kayal and Ors. Vs.

¶4

Probir Kumar Pal alias Prabir Kumar Pal and Ors.

¶5

Mr. Dilip Kumar Maity,

¶6

Mr. Sanjoy Saha

¶7

….For the Appellants.

¶8

Mr. S. S. Arefin, Ms. Farida Khatun

¶9

Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.

¶10

The present second appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance.

¶11

The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit for peculiarly contradictory reliefs. In the same breath, in the first relief in the plaint, the original plaintiff/appellant sought a declaration of title on the basis of a title deed as well as adverse possession, alternatively recovery of possession from the defendant in the event the plaintiff was found not to be in possession.

¶12

Such prayers are ex facie contradictory and mutually exclusive.

¶13

¶14

The appellate court categorically held that the plaintiffs were not sure as to whether they were claiming title on the basis of title deed or adverse possession. Also, both the courts below arrived at a finding that whereas the plaintiffs/appellants failed to prove possession in respect of the suit pond, the defendants produced rent receipts and other documents, which were exhibited in the suit, to show the possession and payment of rent by the defendants in respect of the suit pond all along.

¶15

Upon a careful perusal of the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, we are of the opinion that there is no scope of interference with such concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below, nor was there any error, either factual or legal, on the part of the courts below while coming to such conclusions. Hence, since no substantial question of law is involved, SAT 60 of 2025 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶16

Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 stands dismissed as well. No order as to costs.

¶17

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶18

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Joydeb Kayal and Ors. v. Probir Kr Pal @ Prabir Kumar Pal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joydeb Kayal and Ors. v. Probir Kr Pal @ Prabir Kumar Pal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sikha Bhattacharjee Vs Padma Chakraborty and Ors.

Suresh Prasad Gupta Vs Alokesh Ganguly and Ors.

Chandrima Sen Majumder Choudhury Vs Deya Braman Das and Anr.

Anuraj Chaturvedi and Anr. Vs Tapan Majumder and Anr.

Anwar Hussain Vs MD Quamruddin Qureshi

Beleghata Nabamilan Club Vs Purnima Kundu and Anr.