SAT/4/2026 of JOYDEB DEY Vs RUPA DHAR AND ORS. on 20 July 2026

1. The appellant prays for admission of the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated June 20, 2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sadar, Cooch Behar in Title Appeal No.20 of 2023, affirming the judgment and decree dated July 31, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, Cooch Behar in Title Suit No. 07 of 2014, this appeal has been filed.

2. Both the learned courts have arrived at a concurrent finding that the evidence produced by the appellant/plaintiff, i.e., Exhibit-6 and Exhibit 1 did not substantiate ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the scheduled property. The plaintiff put forth the claim of ownership of the scheduled property, measuring about 53 decimals, by virtue of a deed of gift and a deed of sale.

3. The plaintiff’s case was that his brother Bholanath Dey gifted him 47 decimals of land by a registered deed of gift. Further, the plaintiff along with Bholanath Dey and another, purchased 16.5 decimals of land, each having 1/3rd shares which came to 5.5 decimals. Thereafter, the plaintiff got vacant possession of the land and applied for mutation in the settlement record, and his name was duly recorded in respect of the said lands in L.R. Khatian No. 3555 in respect of L.R. Plot Nos. 3489, 3490, 3491, 3494 and 3514 of Mouja-Takagachh, Police Station Kotwali. It was alleged that the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 had no right, title and interest over the lands in question, but surreptitiously and behind the back of the plaintiff/appellant sold land measuring above 25 decimals out of the plaintiff’s purchased property to the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by registered deeds of sale in 2024. On the basis of such deeds the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were disturbing the plaintiff in various ways and threatening the plaintiff that they would take forceful possession of the said land by ousting the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 had got their names entered in the settlement records by deleting the name of the plaintiff from the finally published record of rights. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the district Land and Land Reforms Officer Sadar, Cooch Behar.

5. Under such circumstances, alleging disturbance by the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 the suit was filed.

6. The plaintiff prayed for declaration of right, title and interest and possession in the suit land as per the schedule and cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the defendant nos.4 and 5 in favour of the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3. The schedule is quoted below:- “Schedule Suit Land District- Cooch Behar, Police Station – Kotwali, Pargana- Behar, Mouja- Takagachh, J.L. No. 134, L.R. Khatian No. 3555, Plot No. 3489, land measuring 0.06 acre Plot No. 3490, land measuring 0.20 acre Plot No. 3491, land measuring 0.07 acre Plot No. 3494, land measuring 0.13 acre Plot No. 3514, land measuring 0.17 acre”

7. Thus, as per the present case, the total land of the plaintiff measured around 53 decimals. The deeds under which the plaintiff claimed ownership were marked as Exhibit – 6 and Exhibit 1 in the suit, namely, the gift deed bearing no.1052 of 2012 executed by Bholanath Dey in favour of the plaintiff and sale deed bearing no.5756 of 1988 which was executed by Chameli Rani Dey in favour of the plaintiff, Bholanath Dey and Manu Dey.

8. According to both the learned courts, Exhibit-6 revealed that Bholanath Dey transferred 47 decimals of land in favour of the plaintiff by way of a gift deed comprising RS 2414, corresponding to four LR Plots 3514, 3490, 3491 and 3494. So it was clear that, the plaintiff did not acquire any title in either LR Plot 3493 or 3489. Exhibit – 1 was the joint sale deed in the name the plaintiff,

Bholanath Dey and Manu Dey in respect of 16.5 decimals of land in RS Plot No.2414 each having 5.5 decimals. The said deed only contained RS plot numbers and the plaintiff had not mentioned the corresponding LR plot numbers in respect of the 16.5 decimals of land purchased by three persons jointly.

9. Thus, the purchased plot could not be correlated with the suit plots.

10. The defendants filed Exhibit – C series, i.e., plot information report in respect of RS Plot No.2414 and upon perusal thereof the courts found that the said Exhibit – C series indicated that during LR operation five LR plots were created from RS Plot No.2414, i.e., 3490, 3491, 3493, 3494 and 3500.

11. Upon considering the plaint case, the courts found that there was no specific averment with regard to the mode and manner of acquisition of 6 decimals of land in the suit plots by purchase. The plaintiff claimed a declaration of his right, title and interest over 13 decimals of land in LR Plot No.3493, which was not possible, as the plaintiff’s share was 5.5 decimals.

12. The plaint case was that the plaintiff acquired title in respect of 5.5 decimals of land by virtue of the sale deed being Exhibit – 1, and additional 6 decimals were recorded in his name in LR Plot No.3489 to avoid fragmentation. These contentions of the plaintiff did not find acceptance by either of the courts.

13. According to the courts, there were no documents before them to ascertain whether LR Plot No.3489 was created from RS Plot No.2414. The courts were not in a position to ascertain from which RS plots, LR Plot No.3489 was created and how the plaintiff had acquired right, title and interest in respect of 6 decimals in the said plot. The plaint case was that the plaintiff acquired property in RS Plot Nos.2410 and 2414 but, from Exhibit –C series it was found that five LR plots were created from RS Plot No.2414 and there was no existence of LR Plot No.3489 amongst those five plots. No documents had come before the court to link RS Plot No.2414 with RS Plot No.3489. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim in respect of his right, title and interest over 6 decimals of land over LR Plot No.3489 as stated in the schedule of the plaint, remained unexplained and unestablished.

14. As per the plaint case, by virtue of the deed of gift the plaintiff acquired 47 decimals of land from Bholanath Dey. Exhibit - 2 was considered by the learned courts. It was the purchase deed of Bholanath Dey which was executed in his favour by Namita Rani Roy in respect of 33 decimals of land in RS Plot No.2414. Even if, the Exhibit – 2 was accepted, the fact that Bholanath Dey acquired 33 decimals from Namita Rani Roy and Bholanath Roy gifted 40 decimals in the said RS Plot No.2414 in favour of the appellant was inconsistent and not acceptable. It was held that Bholanath Dey at best could transfer 38.5 decimals if the acquisition of

Bholanath could be proved. Further, the courts found that Exhibit – 6 did not contain any history of the chain deed by which Bholanath had acquired the property. It was admitted by P.W.2, i.e., the assistant of the deed writer, that there was no history of the chain deed in respect of Exhibit – 6. Exhibit – 6 also indicated that Bholanath Dey transferred 7 decimals of land from RS Plot No.2410, but the plaintiff had not filed any document regarding acquisition of land by Bholanath Dey. It was asserted in the plaint that Bholanath Dey purchased 8 decimals of land from Namita Rani Roy, but, such deed was never produced before the Court. The plaintiff in a very casual manner averred that the deed was untraceable. The courts were of the view that, if the original deed was not traceable, certified copy thereof could have been produced and if the certified copy could not be produced on account of destruction of the documents in a fire, then the plaintiff was duty bound to lead cogent evidence to support the factum of existence of such deed.

15. On considering the documents and evidence on record, it was seen that the plaintiff could not establish his title in respect of LR Plot Nos.3493 and 3489 by claiming on the basis of Exhibit – 6. The plaintiff could not substantiate his title in respect of 7 decimals of land corresponding to LR Plot No.3514 and he failed to prove the right of Bholanath Dey to transfer the land by way of the deed of gift. The source of LR Plot No.3489 had remained unclear and it was seen that the plaintiff had included the plot number whimsically and without proper explanation.

16. Under such circumstances, both the courts came to concurrent findings that the plaintiff could not prove his title in respect of 53 decimals in the plots mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The schedule of the plaint did not contain proper description of the property which was sufficient to identify the same. The documents would show that the properties were all undivided, as specific boundaries had not been mentioned in the schedule. In view of these contradictory facts and upon analysis of the evidence on record, the learned courts held that the plaintiff had failed to establish his right, title and interest in respect of the plots mentioned in the schedule of the plaint.

17. We do not find any substantial question of law involved for admission of the appeal.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

19. We are not here to re-appreciate the evidence which both the learned courts had examined in detail and arrived at specific findings with regard to the missing link between the plaintiff’s claim in respect of RS plot and the corresponding LR plots.

20. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)

(Smita Das De, J.)