- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 29th April, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Bankura in Title Appeal No. 20 of 2010 affirming the judgement and decree dated 27th January, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Bankura in Title Suit No. 88 of 2005 at the instance of the defendant/appellant. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out 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.
(2.) Here is the case where we find that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for eviction of the defendant/appellant on termination of his licence. The defendant/appellant contested the said suit by filing written statement. He denied the relationship of licensor and licensee between the parties. He claimed that he was never inducted as licensee in the suit premises. He further claimed that the suit premises is the property of the South Eastern Railway over which the plaintiffs have no title. Thus, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit by raising a dispute with regard to the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property.
(3.) The suit property is identified as municipal holding No. 89 within Bankura Municipality. There are four shop rooms within the said holding. The defendant/appellant possessing the suit property within the said holding. Though the defendant claims that the said holding belongs to South Eastern Railway, but no step was taken by him to prove that the said premises belongs to South Eastern Railway. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have produced their documents of title. They have proved the decree passed in the partition suit being Exhibit-3 by which the suit property was allotted to them. They have also proved the municipal tax receipts being Exhibit-5 showing that their names were recorded as owners of the said property. When the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving their title in the suit property and the defendant has failed to prove his better title than the plaintiffs, we are of the view that the plaintiffs/respondents can recover possession from the defendant/appellant on the strength of their title in the property, even if they failed to establish induction of the defendant in the suit premises by them as their licensee.;