Supreme Court: In a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the Second Appeal holding that defence of Sikmi tenancy cannot be raised at the stage of Second Appeal as the same was not raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Court and the Civil Court, the division bench of Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while continuing the status quo, directed the District Revenue Officer/Tehsildar of the area to carry out the measurement of the entire property and to associate the expert revenue officials. The measurement process was directed to be videographed.
Background:
The petitioner resides in a two storied building, with the Municipal Holding of Islampur Municipality standing. The petitioner and the respondent have been in joint possession of Schedule A property since 1960. The sale deed of the premises was purchased during the lifetime of the grandfather of petitioner and is registered in the respondent’s name. The parties were carrying on common business under the trade name and style of Sarat Tea Company Private Limited and Bimala Devi Tea Company Private Limited. Post the demise of the grandfather of the petitioner, differences cropped up between the parties to manage, supervise, and control the properties of the said two companies. Consequently, an amicable family settlement agreement arrived on 23-01-2009 through which shares of both the businesses were transferred as per the mutual agreement between the parties. Within one year of the execution of Family Settlement, the respondent filed a title suit.
The Civil Judge delivered the judgment in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the suit, by holding that inter alia the respondent failed to prove that at the relevant point of time, he had sufficient income to purchase the suit land and to construct Schedule A property thereon. The respondents filed an appeal against the judgment dated 30-04-2012 passed by the Trial Court. The aforesaid judgment and decree under appeal were set aside by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 30-11-2012. Being aggrieved with the order of the Appellate Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the appellate decree dated 30-11-2012 passed by the Additional District Judge. The High Court opined that no substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Hence, the present SLP was filed on the ground that the High Court vide Judgment dated 22-03-2024 erred in its observation with respect to the rights of the petitioners as a Sikmi Tenant and has failed to take on record the relevant documents supporting his claim.
Contentions:
The petitioner contended that the High Court, while passing the impugned order has failed to see that the Appellate Court has not considered the voluminous documents which include record of rights, income tax reports and sale deed, produced by the petitioner. The Civil Judge ruled in favor of the petitioner only after going through the records in detail produced before.
Further, it was contended that the High Court has failed to look into the major fact that the impugned premises form part of Sikmi Tenancy under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, which means that the Sikmi right is not transferable in law.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court said that the parties have not been able to agree even for the demarcation of the disputed property.
Therefore, the Court directed the District Revenue Officer/Tehsildar of the area to carry out the measurement of the entire property including the plots.
The Court directed the SSP to deploy adequate police force so that no untoward incident happens at the time of measurement.
The Court said that the expenditure incurred by the State on the measurement exercise will be determined on the next date of hearing after receipt of the Measurement Report. Such expenditure was directed to be borne by both the parties.
The Court continued the Interim order of maintaining status quo, till further orders.
Meanwhile, the Court directed the petitioner to cure the defects in the application for substitution to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent.
[Rajat Chowdhury v. Dhananjay Chowdhury, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2107, decided on 12-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR, Deepakshi Garg, Adv. Manan Daga, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Kavin Gulati, Sr.Adv. A.Mazumdar, Adv. Partha Pratim Roy, Adv. Sayaree Basu Mallik, AOR
