Narayan Chandra Sil, J. - (1.) - These two second appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1990 passed by Shri S.N. Burman, learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore in connection with Title Appeal Nos. 214 of 1989 and 215 of 1989 arising out of Title Suit Nos. 43 of 1980 and 30 of 1980 respectively whereby the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to affirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
(2.) In fact, the title suit No. 43 of 1980 was filed by Bhupendra Nath Poddar, since deceased and his two sons against Dhirendra Nath Poddar and others for eviction of licensees on various grounds including causing of damage, recovery of possession and furniture etc. and after hearing both the parties the learned trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the said suit. The other title suit being Title Suit No. 30 of 1980 was filed by Dhirendra Nath Poddar and others against Bhupendra Nath Poddar since deceased and after hearing both the parties the learned trial Judge was pleased to pass the decree in that suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge the first appeals were filed by the legal heirs of Bhupendra Nath Poddar and the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to dismiss both the appeals and affirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Both the learned trial Judge and the learned Additional District Judge heard and disposed of the suits and the appeals analogously and as such the instant two second appeals have been taken together for analogous consideration.
(3.) Both the Courts below narrated the facts of the case of contesting parties in all details and as such I shall refrain from describing the same in such details once again. Thus, the facts of the case of both the parties in brief are that the original plaintiff Bhupendra Nath Poddar No. 1 claimed in the Title Suit filed by him and others (Title Suit No. 43 of 1980) that the residential building situated at 15A, Badridas Temple Street standing in the name of his wife was the property of her wife and the defendants of that suit who are the step brothers of the plaintiff No. 1 were permitted to live there out of love and affection as licensees but this claim of the plaintiffs was controverted by the defendants on the ground that the said household property was purchased from the income of the business which was started from the income of the common ancestor, Brindaban Chandra Poddar. Brindaban Chandra Poddar was the father of Bhupendra Nath Poddar and Dhirendra Nath Poddar and others. Bhupendra Nath Poddar was the son of Brindaban Chandra Poddar from his first wife whereas Dhirendra and others are the sons by his second wife. It is also the ground of the defendants of Title Suit No. 43 of 1980 that Bhupendra being the eldest son of Brindaban by his first wife. Brindaban and the defendants as well reposed total confidence on Bhupendra in respect of the business and all other financial matters and Bhupendra also on the other hand created an impression in their minds that he was utilising the profit of the business for the common benefits of all. But, it is the further case of the defendants, Bhupendra purchased the said household property in the name of his wife from the income of the said family business. This is in short what is about the case of both the contesting parties in respect of the household property, situated at 15A, Badridas Temple Street.;