Calcutta High Court
SAT/25/2024 of MILAN DEB AND ORS Vs PARASURAM CHOWDHURY AND ORS on 13 July 2026
2026. MNS. SAT No. 25 of 2024 + CAN 2 of 2026 Milan Deb and others Vs. Parasuram Chowdhury and others Mr. Suprabhat Bhattacharyya, Ms. Prativa Ghatak, Advs. … for the appellants. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment of reversal. 2. The learned trial Court considered
M/L.12.
July 13, 2026.
MNS.
SAT No. 25 of 2024
+
CAN 2 of 2026
Milan Deb and others
Vs.
Parasuram Chowdhury and others
Mr. Suprabhat Bhattacharyya,
Ms. Prativa Ghatak, Advs.
… for the appellants.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment of reversal.
2. The learned trial Court considered the point now raised by the defendants/appellants as to the suit having abated on the demise of defendant no. 1 Lokman Ali and came to the conclusion that, at best, the judgment and decree of the suit cannot be executed against the heirs of the said deceased but for that reason it could not be said that the suit was not maintainable.
3. However, the learned trial Judge went on to hold that the plaintiffs could not prove their title in the suit property.
4. The First Appellate Court, on the other hand, considered at length the documents adduced as evidence by both parties.
5. It is the finding of both the courts below that the property originally belonged to Paramananda and Jagannath.
6. The Appellate Court proceeded on the basis of the Exhibit- 4, a sale deed dated August 10, 1956, whereby
2 Paramananda and Jagannath sold the whole property to Sudarshan, Saroju, Sitaram and Kashiprosad, the legal heirs of whom, in turn, sold the whole property to the plaintiffs vide deed no. 567 dated March 19, 2004 (Exhibit- 5).
7. Although the certified copy, as opposed to the original, of the plaintiffs’ title deed dated March 10, 2004 was produced by the plaintiffs, sufficient explanation for furnishing secondary evidence was given in the evidence of the plaintiffs’ witnesses.
8. The learned First Appellate Judge disbelieved the case of the defendants that Lokman Ali, in the capacity of either Power of Attorney holder of the owners or in his own capacity, could have transferred the property to the defendants.
9. Upon a perusal of the judgments of both the courts, we find that the matter involves pure questions of fact.
10. Thus, we do not find any question of law, let alone any substantial question of law, being involved in the appeal.
11. Accordingly, SAT No. 25 of 2024 is dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
12. Consequentially, CAN 2 of 2026 is also dismissed.
13. There will be no order as to costs.
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)