Ashok Roy And ORS. v. Gouranga Mondal And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

SAT/3/2022 IA No.CAN/1/2022 Ashok Roy and others ... Appellants Vs.

Gouranga Mondal and others ... Respondents Mr. Ajoy Kumar Mondal ... for the appellants July 19, 2022 [SR] Item No.8 The plinth of the submissions of the defendants/appellants is that the First Appellate Court erred in law in overlooking the fact that the defendants/appellants are in adverse possession of the disputed premises. It is submitted that previous demarcation was sought long back and, in the year 2009, the plaintiffs/respondents made an application for demarcation again which was decided and ultimately it was ascertained that the present appellants are illegally in occupation of a portion of the respondents' property. It is contended that since the respondents themselves admitted that the appellants are in illegal occupation, the suit filed by the respondents inter alia for eviction ought to have been dismissed on the admission of the appellants in respect of the adverse possession.

It is seen from the impugned judgment that the Appellate Court proceeded on the premise that the illegality of the possession of the defendants/appellants commenced in the year 2009, when the application filed before the Tehsildar for demarcation was decided and it was ascertained that the appellants are in illegal occupation.

The suit for eviction was filed in the year 2010 itself and, as such, was well within time.

That apart, mere admission of illegality of occupation of the defendants does not confer any right on the defendants to resist the plaintiffs eviction suit on the ground of adverse possession. The necessary ingredients, as rightly found by the First Appellate Court, to establish the adverse possession for example, hostility, continuous and uninterrupted possession etc have not been established in the present case.

Hence, we do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. As such, no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. Accordingly, SAT/ 3/2022 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 without any order as to costs.

Consequently, the connected application being CAN/1/2022 also stands dismissed.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)