Decided on March 17,1970

The Eastern Food Products (Private) Ltd. Appellant
Rabia Dusad And Ors. Respondents


P.K. Goswami, C.J. - (1.) ALL the suits and the appeals arising there from in the Court below were tried together and disposed of by common judgment. Hence all these second appeals are also taken up together and disposed of accordingly.
(2.) THESE are nine second appeals by the Plaintiffs against the judgment and decrees in nine title suits whereby the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the earlier judgment and decrees of the learned Munsiff. The Plaintiffs are a company and purchased a tea garden owning the lands in suit from the previous owners some time in 1958. They brought these suits for evicting the Defendants on the allegation that they have been on the land under permissive occupation of their predecessors -in -interest as licensees. Although they are not entitled to any notice, they gave each of them notice for eviction, with which they did not comply. The Defendants submitted written statements almost in identical terms and alleged that they have been on the land from the time of their forefathers for the last hundred years. They denied that they were under permissive occupation of the Plaintiffs or in any sense licensees under them. They made a categorical assertion that they and their forefathers dispossessed the Garden Authorities forcibly and occupied the land and began to settle there by doing cultivation and erecting other structures thereon.
(3.) SEVERAL issues were framed in the suits. The material issues which are now being canvassed before me are: Issue No. 3: is the suit barred by limitation? Issue No. 5: Has the Defendants acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by right of adverse possession on the suit land? The learned Munsiff accepted the story of the Plaintiffs relying on the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Hajira book, Ext. 7, that the Defendants were licensees under the Plaintiffs' predecessors and in that view of the matter held that the suits were not barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed this finding. After carefully considering the entire evidence, oral and documentary, he came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs could not establish that the Defendants were licensees either under them or under their predecessors -in -interest. This is a finding of fact which even Mr. Chaudhuri does not seek to challenge.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.