Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sri Sushil Kumar Koley vs Sri Sunil Kumar Koley on 15 January, 2018

Author: Arijit Banerjee

Bench: Arijit Banerjee

                                        1



15.01.2018.
   d.p.
                                     S.A.T. 161 of 2016
                                            With
                                    CAN No. 4978 of 2016



                                   Sri Sushil Kumar Koley
                                           Versus
                                   Sri Sunil Kumar Koley


                          Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee,
                          Mr. Pradip Kr. Neogi,
                          Mr. Achintya Kr. Biswas.
                                                ...For the Appellant.



                    The defect in this appeal reported by the Stamp Reporter in
              his report may be ignored in case the appellant applies before the
              learned First Appellate Court for correction of the decree in the
              light of the report of the Stamp Reporter and submits the corrected
              decree before this Court before the appeal matures for hearing.


                    This appeal will be heard on the following substantial
              question of law.


                        Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified
                        in recognizing the possessory title of the plaintiff in the
                        suit property while the plaintiff did not make out such a
                        case in the plaint and on the contrary, the plaintiff made
                        out a positive case of acquisition of title through the
                        deed of Patta dated 6th June, 1947 (Ext. 9) and the Doul
                        dated 10th January, 1948 (Ext. 10) which the plaintiff
                        has failed to substantiate in his evidence or not?
                               2




      Issue usual notices.


      Call for the records.


In Re:-An application for stay being CAN No. 4978 of 2016.


      The application for stay being CAN No. 4978 of 2016 is taken
on board after treating the same as on day's list.



      The appellant is directed to serve copy of the application for
stay upon the respondent intimating that this application will be

listed for hearing eight weeks hence. Such service should be effected by registered post/speed post with A/D. The appellant is directed to file affidavit-of-service on the next date of hearing.

Let this application be included in the list eight weeks hence under the heading "Application (Civil)".

All further proceedings of Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2016 pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur will remain stayed unconditionally for a period of eight weeks and, if in the meantime, the appellant deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of security in terms of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the interim stay which is granted above will continue till the disposal of this application.

3

It is made clear that in the event such deposit is made, the learned Executing Court will invest such deposit in a Short Term Fixed Deposit with any Nationalized Bank and keep the said deposit renewed from time to time till the disposal of this application.

(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, ACJ.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)