- (1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 27th April, 2004 passed by learned Fast Track Court, Sealdah, in Title Appeal No.01 of 2001 affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 128 of 1986.
(2.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said judgment of confirmation the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this Second Appeal. The Case of the appellant/plaintiff, in short, is that he was adopted by Jawaharlal Shaw as his son in or about 1940 and that Jawaharlal Shaw died intestate in 1960. After the death of Jawaharlal Shaw the appellant/plaintiff became absolute owner of the properties including the suit properties left behind by Jawaharlal Shaw and the defendants being nephew of Jawaharlal Shaw had no right, title or interest over the properties of Jawaharlal Shaw. The defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and that on that score appellant/plaintiff filed the said Title Suit being No.128 of 1986.
(3.) Defendant No.4 Manoj Kumar Barman filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff but he did not take part in any way in the further proceedings of the suit. Remaining Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that Jawaharlal Shaw never adopted plaintiff as his son and that plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the properties left behind by Jawaharlal Shaw and that in reality those properties were purchased in the name of Jawaharlal Shaw with the joint money of Jawaharlal Shaw and his brothers namely Motilal Shaw and Hiralal Shaw who were fathers of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiff was a relation of the present defendants and was permitted to stay in one room in the first floor of the suit premises as a licensee by Hiralal Shaw, the father of defendant No.1 and later on after death of Hiralal Shaw the defendants renewed the said license. It was further case of the contesting defendants that plaintiff was a son of Ram Prasad Shaw and that there was never any valid adoption in 1940 or at any point of time by Jawaharlal Shaw as alleged and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.;