Peter Barla v. Jageshwar Lall

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** SA/1/2025 With SA/2/2025 Peter Barla Vs Jageshwar Lall Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Advocate Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the respondent February 7, 2025 [AKB] Item no. 1 & 2 1.

The present second appeal has been filed challenging the justifiability of the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Other Appeal No. 16 of 2012. By this judgment, the learned appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's decisions on issues Nos. 2, 3, and 5, while rejecting the Trial Court's decisions on the remaining issues. Ultimately, the appellate court held that the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to a decree of eviction in respect of 74 sq.mtrs. of land out of a total 3132 sq.ft. in Survey No. 47, located at Junglighat village, Tehsil Port Blair. Additionally, the learned appellate court passed a decree for the recovery of khas possession in favor of the plaintiff for the said 74 sq.mtrs of land against the appellant/defendant. 2.

Record reveals that the said second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in misreading and misinterpreting the documentary evidence marked as Exhibit 3(g) which was a local investigation report and the oral evidence of PW-2 (Santosh Prakash) while affirming the findings returned by the learned Trial Court in adjudicating the issues No. 2, 4 and 5".

3.

During the hearing, Mr. Jayapal, learned Advocate representing the appellant, drew my attention to Exhibit 3(g) and contended that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 49, while the respondent, Shri Jageshwar Lall, is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 47, which comprises an area of 3132 sq.ft. (291 sq.mtrs.). He submits that according to the report of the local inspection commissioner, a portion of the land, measuring 74 sq.mtrs., which is part of Survey No. 47, remains vacant. Mr. Jayapal categorically submits, upon instructions from his client, who is present in court today, that the appellant has not encroached upon any portion of the land bearing Survey No. 47. Furthermore, he states that if the lawful owner of the land possesses and enjoys the said land, the appellant will have no objection. 4.

Indisputably, the dispute regarding possession of a portion of land bearing Survey No. 47, measuring 74 sq.mtrs., led to this litigation, which has ultimately reached this Court in this second appeal. However, during the course of the hearing, a sense of reason prevailed, and the appellant has categorically stated before this Court that he is not in possession of any part of the land bearing Survey No. 47. He further stated that she has no objection if the lawful owner of the land possesses and enjoys the said property. In light of this submission made by the appellant, I find no impediment to disposing of the appeal based on such an assurance. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the following order. 5.

This second appeal is disposed of with the consent of the parties, invoking the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with the following orders:

a) The respondent to this appeal shall possess and enjoy the land bearing Survey No. 47 independently, without being disturbed by or interfered with, the appellant.

b) Similarly, the appellant shall continue to possess and enjoy the land bearing Survey No. 49 without being disturbed by or interfered with, by respondent.

c) The appellant shall not create any obstruction to the respondent in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Survey No. 47 in any manner or form whatsoever.

6.

With this observation and order these appeals are disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to the costs. 7.

Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. )