- (1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated May 31, 2007 and June 15, 2007 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Hooghly (Sadar) in T.S. 150/1998.
(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the appellant (plaintiff of the original suit and hereinafter referred to as appellant ) is that the property, described in the schedule of the plaint of the original suit, measuring 2 cottahs 13 chittaks 31 square feet, originally belonged to one Sitanath Mukherjee and his two sons who sold out the same in favour of the appellant by a sale deed dt. September 6, 1982 and put the appellant in possession of the same and the appellant got his name mutated in the Assessment Register of the local Municipality, on payment of taxes. The appellant applied for sanction of a building plan by way of conversion of existing tin-shaded room to a pucca room and the Municipality duly sanctioned the plan on November 27, 1984.
(3.) After getting the sanctioned plan, the appellant constructed the ground floor of the building in conformity with that sanctioned plan. In 1988, the appellant applied for getting another plan sanctioned for the construction of the first floor over the existing building and the said plan was duly sanctioned by the Municipality and its validity was extended till June 16, 1992. The appellant constructed the first floor of a building in conformity with the sanctioned plan. The respondent no. 6 (i.e. the defendant no. 6 of the original suit hereinafter referred to as the respondent no. 6) sent an intimation by Memo No. 365/Misc. dt. July 13, 1992, wherein it was alleged that the appellant raised an unauthorized construction on the plot in question. On receipt of such notice, the appellant discussed the matter with the respondents no. 3, 9 and 10 but they did not get any adverse decision against such construction of the appellant.;