JUDGEMENT
Prasenjit Mandal, J. -
(1.)This application is at the instance of the
plaintiff and is directed against the order no.169 dated May 9,
2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First
Additional Court, Contai in Title Suit No.11 of 2008. By the
impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has accepted the learned
commissioners report.
(2.)The short fact of the case is that the plaintiff / petitioner
instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction against the opposite parties. In that suit, the
defendants filed a written statement and they have taken the
defence stand that the suit properties as mentioned in schedules
ka, kha, ga and uma of the plaint do not appertain to R.
S. Dag no.983, 987, 991 and 993 of Mouza: Depal Sasanbarh, under
P.S. Ramnagar. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed an
application for appointment of a survey passed commissioner to
hold investigation and submit reports on the points mentioned in
the application. That application was allowed and upon holding
investigation, the learned commissioner submitted reports along
with the connected papers. The plaintiff / petitioner filed an
objection against such reports and upon consideration of the
objection and the deposition of the learned commissioner, the
learned Trial Judge has accepted the reports. Being aggrieved,
the plaintiff/petitioner has preferred this application.
Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the learned commissioner
did not ascertain the fixed points as per R. S. map. Moreover, he
did not survey the entire lands mentioned under different plots.
The learned commissioner did not carry the work of the
investigation as per terms of the deed issued to him and so the
reports should have been rejected by the learned Trial Judge.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order
can be sustained.
(3.)Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on
going through the materials on record, I find that the suit
property comprises plot nos.983, 987, 991, and 993 and those have
been described in schedules ka, kha, ga and uma in the
plaint. On being challenged by the defendants as to the identity
of the plots, a local investigation was directed to be held at the
instance of the plaintiff / petitioner. The learned commissioner
held investigation in presence of the plaintiff. The first point
for investigation was whether the suit plots being numbered 983,
987, 991 and 993 appertained to the respective plots as described
in the schedule of the plaint. In this regard, upon holding
investigation in presence of the plaintiff, the learned
commissioner held that ka schedule suit land does not appertain
to plot no.983 but to plot no.957. Similarly, he held that kha
schedule suit land does not appertain to 987 but it appertains to
989 and 990. The ga schedule suit land does not appertain to
991 but to plot no.990. The gha schedule land does not appertain
to plot no.993 but to plot no.990 and uma suit land does not
appertain to plot no.993 but to plot no.994, 995 and 996
respectively. In order to ascertain such identification, the
learned commissioner surveyed the said plots and also the adjacent
plots with the help of the settlement map of 19541957. The suit
properties were identified by the plaintiff. The plaintiff signed
on the report of the learned commissioner to signify that he was
very much present at the time of holding the survey. The survey
was done as per directions of the Court with reference to the
settlement map of 1954-1957 and he selected the fixed points, as
noted in his report after verifying their fixities by check
measurement.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.