Sri Sankar Singha Roy vs Sri Bijoy Kumar Singha Roy

In the present second appeal, a judgment of affirmance, whereby a decree of eviction and consequential reliefs was passed against the appellant by both the courts below, has been challenged.

Learned counsel for the appellant makes two-fold submissions.

First, that despite having filed an adjournment application in the trial court along with sufficient medical documents, such adjournment was refused and the defendant/appellant was precluded from adducing evidence, thus, affecting the valuable rights of the appellant.

Secondly, it is argued that although a preliminary decree was passed in a previous partition suit instituted by the defendant/appellant between the same parties, no final decree of partition having been passed therein, the subject property remained joint and, as such, every co-sharer has right over every inch of the property.

Thus, it is argued that the learned courts below erred in law in decreeing eviction of the appellant from a specific portion of the said joint property.

However, insofar as rejection of the adjournment application is concerned, both the courts have factually been satisfied that such rejection of adjournment was justified and consequentially, the second appellate court cannot reopen the preclusion of the appellant from adducing evidence on such ground.

Insofar as the second ground is concerned, at page-9 of the trial court’s judgment, the learned Trial Judge specifically took into consideration the certified copies of the judgment and decree of Title Suit No.131 of 2004 (the earlier partition suit) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Burdwan, which was marked as Exhibit-6 (series). On perusal of the said documents, the learned Trial Judge specifically held that the earlier court, hearing the partition suit, granted preliminary decree and specifically held that four cottas of land in Plot No. 90 were under exclusive ownership of Bijay Kumar Singh Roy, that is, the present plaintiff/respondent. It was further recorded that the plaintiff therein (present defendant/appellant) was not entitled to get any relief in respect of 40 plots mentioned in Item No. 2 and in respect of 4 cottah land purchased in the name of Bijay Singha Roy.

We find from the present impugned decree that it is Plot No. 90 in respect of which the decree has been passed. Thus, even from the findings of the courts below, it is evident that the issue of alleged title of the parties in respect of the suit plot has already been conclusively decided, which operates as res judicata in the present suit. The earlier preliminary decree having conclusively held that the present appellant was not entitled to get any relief in respect of the subject plot, which was thus kept outside the hotchpot of the joint properties in said partition suit, there was no illegality on the part of the learned courts below in decreeing the present eviction suit on the finding that the plaintiff/respondent was the exclusive owner of the property.

Accordingly, we do not find any substantial question of law involved.

Hence, SA 15 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 stands dismissed as well.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.