Thupa Bala Sardar Vs Suniti Sardar and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Thupa Bala Sardar Vs Suniti Sardar and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the presumption applicable to pardanashin/illiterate ladies (casting a reverse burden of proof on the person relying on her deed) could be invoked on behalf of Manibala, widow of original owner Jadu Sardar, when the plaint contained no plea that she was rustic, illiterate or pardanashin. +3 more

Court's answer

The cursory reference during arguments that Manibala was a “tribal lady” is not sufficient to raise the presumption applicable to pardanashin and illiterate ladies, under which a reverse burden of proof is cast on the person relying on a deed executed by such a lady.

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any averment in the plaint that Manibala was rustic, illiterate or pardanashin, neither of the Courts acted illegally in not adverting to such submissions.

Key takeaways

The first Appellate Court did advert to all the materials on record, contrary to the appellant's contention.ratio¶16
No error of law was committed by either of the Courts below.ratio¶16
The title deeds executed in favour of the defendants' predecessor were never challenged in the suit at all, which weighs against the claim for declaration of title simpliciter with consequential injunction.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal SAT 11 of 2025 (with CAN 2 of 2025), decided 10.02.2026, by Smt. Thupa Bala Sardar (plaintiff/appellant) challenging the first Appellate Court's order affirming the Trial Court's dismissal of her suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against Suniti Sardar and others; bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ. Held, dismissing the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC: (i) the plaint contained no plea that Manibala, widow of the original owner Jadu Sardar, was rustic, illiterate or pardanashin; the solitary reference during arguments to her being a 'tribal lady' cannot raise the presumption applicable to pardanashin/illiterate ladies nor cast the reverse burden on the party relying on her deeds, and neither Court acted illegally in not adverting to that submission; (ii) the title deeds in favour of the defendants' predecessor were never challenged in the suit; (iii) the first Appellate Court did advert to all materials and had already granted a partial decree for properties not covered by the defendants' deeds; (iv) with concurrent findings of fact by both Courts, no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arose. CAN 2 of 2025 consequently dismissed; no order as to costs.

AD - 30 Ct No.16 10.02.2026 (SSS)

SAT 11 of 2025 with CAN 2 of 2025

Smt. Thupa Bala Sardar Vs. Suniti Sardar and Ors.

Mr. D. K. Adhikari, Mr. Samir Kumar Adhikari

….For the appellant.

The present challenge has been preferred against the order of the first Appellate Court, whereby the judgment of the Trial Court, dismissing the plaintiffs/appellants’ suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, was affirmed.

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned first Appellate Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the wife of the original owner Jadu Sardar, namely Manibala, was a rustic, illiterate and pardanashin lady at the relevant point of time and could not have executed the transfer deeds on which the

defendants/respondents relied on.

2

Moreover, it is argued that the learned first Appellate Court did not advert to all the findings of the Trial Court.

It is contended that since the name of Jadu Sardar, the original owner, finds place in the CS Records of Rights, the declaration as sought by the plaintiffs, in the capacity of the daughter of Jadu Sardar, ought to have been granted.

However, we find from the findings of both the Courts below that the plaintiff nowhere pleaded in the plaint that the said Manibala was either a rustic or an illiterate or pardanashin lady.

Only during arguments, a cursory reference was recorded by the learned Trial Judge to the effect that Manibala was a “tribal lady”. However, the said averment is not sufficient to raise the presumption applicable to pardanashin and illiterate ladies, in which case a reverse burden of proof is cast on the person relying on any deed executed by such a lady to show that the contents of the documents were read over and explained duly to the said lady. However, in the absence of any such averment in the pleadings of the plaintiff/appellant, we do not find any illegality on the part of either of the Courts in not adverting to such submissions.

That apart, the relief sought by the plaintiff was declaration of her title simpliciter, along with

3

the consequential relief of injunction. The title deeds executed in favour of the defendants’ predecessor was never challenged in the suit at all. Thus, we do not find any error of law committed by either of the Courts below. In fact, the first Appellate Court adverted to all the materials on record and granted a partial decree in favour of the present plaintiff/appellant, relating to the properties not covered by the defendants/respondents’ title deeds. Accordingly, we do not find any question of law, let alone any substantial question of law, involved in the present appeal, particularly in view of the concurrent findings of facts by both the trial court and the first appellate court.

Hence, SAT 11 of 2025 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequentially, CAN 2 of 2025 is also dismissed. 9. There will be no order as to costs.

The parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)