Decided on April 20,2009

Binapani Kandu Appellant
Chairman, Vested And Non-Resident Property Respondents


MD.ABDUL MATIN, J. - (1.) These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment and order dated 3-10-2007 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1887 of 1990 heard analogously with Civil Revision No. 1888 of 1990 discharging the Rattle arising out of judgment and decree dated 5-4-1990 and 26-5-1990 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Narail in Title Appeal No.64 of 1987 dismissing the Appeal of the petitioner and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Narail in Title Suit No. 383 of 1978.
(2.) The facts, in short, are that the petitioner as a plaintiff filed Title Suit No.383 of 1978 in the Court of learned Assistant Judge, Narail for declaration of her title to the suit property contending, inter alia, that the said property originally belonged to Sukumar Bose and others. In a partition suit being Partition Suit No.132 of 1967 in the 3rd Court of Munsif, Narail the respondent opposite party No. 6 got the said property on the basis of a compromise decree passed in the said suit on 23-1-1968 and thereafter sold the present suit premise to the plaintiff-petitioner by a Saf-kabala deed dated 21-1-1974 and handed over peaceful vacant possession of the said properties to her and since then she is in possession of the same in exercising her exclusive right, title and interest in respect thereof, that while the plaintiff-petitioner had been enjoying the schedule property in the said manner one of her relations namely, Dr. Raj Kumar Kundu (now deceased) the predecessor of the defendant-opposite party Nos.2-5, requested the plaintiff-petitioner for temporary shelter to reside in the suit property, specially in the suit buildings consisting of five rooms including kitchen. Being thus requested the appellant-petitioner allowed the said Dr Raj Kumar Kundu, the predecessor of the respondent-opposite party Nos. 2-5, to make temporary use of the suit premises as their residence as licensees, that since then the said Raj Kumar Kundu including the respondent-opposite party Nos.2-5 are residing there as licensees holding permissive possession from the appellant-petitioner of the said suit premises. On 30-5-1978 one of the employees of the respondent-opposite party No.1 informed the husband of appellant-petitioner that the property in question had been placed in the vested property list and the same would be leased out. The further contention of the appellant-petitioner is that the schedule properties could not be a vested property under any circumstances as she had been enjoying and possessing the same by purchase and had mutated her name in the record of right and had been paying the rents to the Government regularly, that her vendor Probhabati Dasi, the respondent-opposite party No.6, is a Bangladeshi citizen and therefore the property in question is the legally acquired property of her own. The contention of respondent-opposite party No.1 regarding vested property is false and without lawful authority and, as such, the appellant-petitioner was constrained to file the suit.
(3.) The case of the respondent-defendant No.1 is that the previous owner of the suit.;

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