Jatindra Nath Sasmal Vs. Fanindra Nath Sasmal On 19 June, 1970

iDraf

Issue
Facts

Open iDraf

Jatindra Nath Sasmal v. Fanindra Nath Sasmal

Jatindra Nath Sasmal
v.
Fanindra Nath Sasmal

(High Court Of Judicature At Calcutta)

L.P.A. No. 6 of 1964 in S.A. No. 460 of 1958 | 19-06-1970

P.N. Mookerjee, J.

1. In this Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of our learned brother Bijaycsh Mukherji J. the only point, which arises for consideration is whether the present suit of the Plaintiffs-Respondents, would be barred under Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. For our present purpose, it is not necessary to go into the facts in any great detail, suffice it to say, that in the case, the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the Plaintiffs-Respondents had been in possession of the disputed property for over twelve years in their own right and in assertion of their own title, has been accepted and affirmed by our learned brother Bijayesh Mukherji J. in second appeal. On that finding, the Plaintiffs' claim of title can very well rest on adverse possession apart from anything else and, in such a situation, the bar of Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would not obviously apply. This, indeed, is well settled Vide Karamuddin Hosain v. Niamat Fatehma I.L.R. (1891) Cal. 199 and Abdul Jalil Khan v. Obaidullah Khan (1929) L.R. 56 IndAp 330; see also S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1254.

3. There will be no order for costs in, this appeal.

Advocates List

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Arun Kumar Janah and Sasthi Charan Roy, Advs. For Respondents/Defendant: Lala Hemanta Kumar and Rebati Nath Sarkar, Advs.

Bench List

Hon'ble Judge P.N. Mookerjee

Hon'ble Judge A.K. Mookerjee

Eq Citation

(1972) ILR 1 CAL 264

LQ/CalHC/1970/181

HeadNote

Limitation — Limitation Act, 1908 — S. 66 — Bar of suit — Held, if suit is based on adverse possession, S. 66 would not apply — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 66