- (1.) Leave is granted to the learned advocate-onrecord of the appellants to rectify the defect in the memorandum of appeal in terms of the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter. This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah on 27th February, 2015 in Title Appeal No. 06 of 2013 reversing the judgement and decree dated 6th December, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 82 of 2003 at the instance of the defendant nos. 2 and 3/appellants.
(2.) Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of her half share in the suit property and for injunction for restraining her father from transferring the suit property and/or handing over possession to any third party/outsider. Initially the plaintiff impleaded her father alone as defendant in the said suit. She claimed that her mother Shefali Dey was the owner of the suit property and on her death, she along with her father viz. Keshab Chandra Dey inherited the suit property as legal heir and heiress of the said Shefali Dey. Keshabbabu filed written statement in the suit, but he died during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter the appellants herein who are the purchasers of the suit property from Keshabbabu were impleaded as defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit. They contested the said suit by filing written statement denying that the plaintiff is the daughter of Keshabbabu.
(3.) Thus, the fate of the said suit depended upon the decision on the issue as to whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Keshabbabu or not. The learned Trial Judge framed such an issue being Issue No.3 in the said suit and decided the said issue against the plaintiff as the plaintiff could not produce her birth certificate though she claimed that she was born in a nursing home which is situated within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and as per the provision of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, birth of a child within the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act is compulsorily registrable. Since the birth certificate could not be produced by the plaintiff, the learned Trial Judge drew adverse inference against the plaintiff. School leaving certificate which was produced by the plaintiff was also discarded by the learned Trial Judge as the evidence of the Headmistress of the school who issued such certificate, according to the learned Trial Judge, was unworthy of reliance as the Headmistress had no personal knowledge about the entries made in the school register regarding recording of the parentage of the plaintiff in the school register.;