The Dominion Government of India conducted a survey. According to it properties comprised in C. S. Khatian No. 530
comprised in C. S. Plot No. 307 and 308 was measuring 0.60 Acre and properties comprised in C. S. Khatian No. 534 C. S. Plot
No. 309, 310, 311 and 311/995 was measuring 0.50 Acre, totaling 1.10 Acre total equivalent to 66 Cottahs more or less. The
aforesaid properties was lying and situated within Mouza Sahapur, Police Station Behala, District: South 24-Parganas, within
ward No. 119 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
16/09/1948 One Nalini Mohan Dey husband of my vendors purchased
aforesaid properties measuring 0.60 Acre equivalent to 36 Cottas comprised in the said C. S. Khatian No. 530 as aforesaid
from it's the then Owners.
23/12/1947 One Balaram Paul was claiming himself as owner of the aforesaid
Properties measuring 0.50 Acre equivalent to 30 Cottahs comprised in the aforesaid C.S. Khatian No. 534, under some false
representations or otherwise, executed one alleged deed in favour of Chittaranjan Ganguly, subsequently, which was seized
by Police in or about May 1948 from the Advocate of said executor Balaram Paul.
08/05/1954 Said Balaram Paul executed another alleged deed relating
to aforesaid self same properties measuring 0.50 Acre equivalent to 30 Cottas, comprised in C.S. Khatian No. 534 as aforesaid,
in favour of said Nalini Mohan Dey, and delivered physical possession of the properties except one part, which according to
him was tenanted to one Abdul Latiff Mistry.
However by Judgment dated 28/09/1977 in Title Suit
No. 301 of 1963 4th Court of Munsif, Alipore held interalia that “C.S.Khatian 534 (ext.3 (a) reveals that Tincouri Sheikh and another were accorded therein as raiyat and Gopal
was in possession of the Suit plot No.311 as a licensee.Ext.3 is the R.S.Khatian 534 showing Sheikh Ghulam Mohammed and other
as raiyats and R.S.Plot 219 hasbben shown to be in forcible possession of defendant Ext.15, Information slip prove as that
R.S.Plot No.219 is old C.S.Plot 311 of Suit. From their records of right I find that neither Balaram nor Gopal nor Abdul Latif
was even shown as Raiyat in respect of suit Khatian or for that matter the suit land, Gopal’s possession was therefore
his possession of a licensee as per the record of rights, the entries in the record of rights have presumption of their correctness.
There is no satisfactory documentary evidence to prove that Gopal was even a raiyat in respect of Suit Khatian, except some
registered deeds wherein admission by the vendors themselves which cannot prove raiyati right of Gopal, in that event, Plff’s
case of Abdul Latif staking settlement of tenancy from Gopal Ch.Pal has no leg
(NOTE: GOPAL PAUL WAS FATHER OF BALARAM
On the basis of the aforesaid Judgment (1) Nalini
Mohan Dey in 1954; and (2) adjudged Chitta Ranjan ganguly has no legs to stand for claim of the ownership, since father of aforesaid Balaram
Paul, namely Gopal Chandra Paul has no legs to stand.
Court hold “The possession of the defdt. (Legal heirs of Rabindra Lal Chakraborty
) in the Suit Land has been recorded as forcible one in for R. S. Records of rights against owners Sk.Golam Md.and other and
it has not been challenged by the defdts. Nor even by the plff. The entries therefore remain as correct. In that view of the
matter the possession of the defdts.in the suit land is held to be that of a trespasser.”. Similarly in the selfsame document “C.S.Khatian
534 (ext.3 (a) reveals that Tincouri Sheikh and another were accorded therein as raiyat and Gopal was in possession of the
Suit Khatian as a licensee. Ext.3 is the R.S.Khatian 534 in respect of the properties comprised in R. S. Plot No. 205, 206 and 207 showing Sheikh Ghulam Mohammed and other as raiyats and name of Nalini Mohan Dey the predecessor-in-interests of Vendors were recorded as forcible one in the following manner:-
In the year of 1956 Government of West Bengal made Revenue Survey, in which aforesaid properties
were recoreded with the corresponding R.S.Plot Nos. in the following manner:-
No.530 R.S.Plot No.194 0.367 Acre
against owner Nalini Mohan Dey, since 1948.
C.S./R.S.Khatian No.530R.S.Plot No.195
C.S./R.S.Khatian No.534 R.S.Plot No.205
0.168 ,, recorded against
owner that it in forcible occupation of Nalini Mohan Dey since 1954.
C.S./R.S.Khatian No.534 R.S.Plot No. 206
0.187 ,, recorded against owner
that it in forcible occupation of Nalini Mohan Dey since 1954.
C.S./R.S.Khatian No.534 R.S.Plot No, 207
recorded against owner that it in forcible occupation of Nalini Mohan Dey since 1954.
C.S./R.S.Khatian No.534 R.S.Plot No.219
0.158 ,, recorded name owner:
as forcible occupation of Rabindra Chakraborty
Therefore Ownership of my Vendors established in respect of 1.098 Acre minus
0.158 recorded name owner: as forcible occupation of Rabindra Chakraborty
= 0.94 Acre = 56 Cottahs of Land
From the records of Rights as well as from the aforesaid Deeds total area of the properties
arises more or less 66 Cottahs, including properties comprised in R. S. Plot No. 219.
1980-1981 My Vendors: Ava Rani Dey and Dipika Rani Bhattacharjee,
through their Lawyer Mr. Swapan Kumar Chakraborty made false claims in writing through their Lawyer that they are owners of
70 Cottas of the land, out of which one litigation is pending in respect of the properties more or less measuring 3 Cottas.
My Lawyer Alok Nath Ghosh, in connivance with their Lawyer Cheated me and not verified authenticity of such false statement.
09-12-1981 / 05-02-1982 I entered in agreement with my Vendors, to purchase
their alleged 70
cottas of landed properties comprised in C. S. Khatian No.
530 and 534 as aforesaid, relying their false claim as correct.
02/02/1982 My Lawyer of Ld. Mr. Aloke Nath Ghosh, Advocate sent
a Letter to Lawyer of my Vendors, Ld. Mr. Swapan Kumar Chakraborty with reference to such agreement and made requisite subsequent
I also entered in Agreements to sale 31 Flats.
31/05/1982 / 28/06/1982 My Vendors, executed 14
Sale Deeds in respect of 35 Cottas of Landed
Properties comprised in entire R. S. Plot No. 194, 205 and
207 in favour of my nominees, including my mother, father, Brother-in-laws, and friends. My Vendors failed to execute Sale
Deeds in respect of R. S. Plot No. 195 and 206 (Measuring
21 Cottahs more or less) for their failure to comply some legal formalities, though I made full payment to them
and they delivered Physical Possession to me. With regards to rest R.S. Plot No. 219 (Measuring
10 Cottahs more or less) they lost their claim of Title in 1977 in the aforesaid Suit against their total false
claim which they made in 1982 in writing through their Lawyer claiming that a Litigation is pending for about 3 Cottahs.
As per Records of Rights and as per aforesaid Deeds total area of the entire properties
comprised in 6 C. S. under 2 C. S. Khatian corresponding with 6 R. S. Plots comprised in 2 R. S. Khatians arrived =
Out of 66 Cottahs they admitted in the plaint and Injunction
Application that they have sold to me:
So, Rest land arrives:
Out of 31 Cottahs of Land they suppressed material facts from the Court relates
to aforesaid Judgment dated 28/09/1977 in Title Suit No. 301 of 1963 which was
filed by their predecessor-in-interest, and dismissed
by 4th Court of Munsif, Alipore
as they failed to prove ownership right over the properties comprised in
Plot No. 219, as per Records of Rights
In 1982 for the rest properties measuring 22 Cottahs of Land more or less they
Executed Registered Sale Deeds and granted Power of Attorney in my favour and delivered physical possession of the same by
taking full payment. I have documentary evidences to prove that my Vendors failed to Execute Sale Deeds for want of some legal
19th September 1984 After Order in Title Suit No. 108 of 1983 passed by Ld. 7th Assistant District
Judge, Alipore, I constructed boundary wall surrounding entire properties comprised under R. S. Plot No. 194 and 195 under
R.S. Khatian No. 530 and R. S. Plot No. 205, 206 and 207 under R. S. Khatian
No. 534 as aforesaid.
21/03/1986 Kolkata Municipal Corpoartion sanctioned two Plans
each for two multistoried buildings in favour of me (R.S.Plot No. 206), and my Cooperative Society (R.S.Plot No. 205). I started
construction of the Buildings on the basis of Two Sanction of Plans one for R. S. Plot No. 205 and another for R. S. Plot
Between 1982 and May 1988 Ava Rani Dey and her daughter Dipika Rani Bhattacharjee
had no dispute against me, when I make construction of boundary walls in 1984 surrounding entire properties and further in
1986 when construction of Buildings was started by me. But in or around May 1988 when they also joined the Boat of the Blackmailers,
dispute was got caused and filed Suit against me. In the suit they adopted criminal manipulation with criminal objects by
mixing up the 6 C. S. Plots described in Records of Rights published in 1932 by the Dominion Government in India with the
corresponding 6 R. S. Plots described in the Records of Rights published by the Government of West Bengal in 1956 and referred
them as total 12 Plots in the Plaint of the Suit without describing them as C. S. or R. S. Plots.
Total property as per Records of Rights relates to aforesaid 6 C. S. Plots corresponding
to aforesaid 6 R. S. Plots was referred as 66 Cottahs.
But under manipulation and after wrongfully mixing up the aforesaid 6 = 6 as 12 Plots they referred Total property in the Suit as 94 Cottahs.
Out of which they admitted that sale of the properties about 35 Cottahs of land to me. According to them after deduction of
already sold 35 Cottahs land they were still owners of the 59 Cotthas of the land. On the basis of their false statement they
filed Injunction Suit against me under connivance with ChuniLal Mukherjee, to favour blackmailing objectives of the Mafia
Leader Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala.
They suppressed such material fact considering that in view of the aforesaid Judgment dated
28/09/1977 in Title Suit No. 301 of 1963 they not entitled to file any Suit in respect of R. S. Plot No. 219 as it was debarred
by Law of the Resjudicata. But they included it in the Suit Property.
1988 I filed Title Suit No. 138 and 139 of 1988
of Ld. 7th Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore against my Vendors for specific performance by execution of Sale Deeds
in respect of Properties comprised in R. S. Plot No. 195 and 206.
As per Supreme Court guidelines, for granting Injunction Order Mr. Moulick, the then Presiding
Officer of the 5th Court of Munsif, Alipore should not have pass any Injunction order against me, in respect of
any part of the aforesaid property. But, he was engaged himself to pass Injunction Order under extra Judicial powers thus
passed Injunction Order against 59 Cottahs of Land out of Total 66 Cottahs. As such I filed Appeal, which was heard by Ld.
Mr. A. K. Chowdhury, Additional District Judge, 5th Court of Alipore (Kolkata) and after hearing hte matter he commented in
open Court that in consideration of the serious manipulation he is going to reject the plaint at limini, and would pass the
order to that effects. But he was embraced by some one against me thus withheld the order for few days and when passed he
upheld the order passed by Mr. J. C. Moulick.
I filed Revision Application before Kolkata High Court against aforesaid Injunction Order
passed against me. When my Counsel Ld. Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, Bar-at-law moved my Petition before Justice Amulya Kumar
Nandi, of Kolkata High Court, after hearing the matter Court was ready to set-aside the Injunction Order passed against me
and to revert back to the lower court for further hearing of the Injunction Petition. At this stage Ld. Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee,
argued before the Hon’ble Court that in consideration of serious manipulations in the Suit Property he will satisfy
to Court to pass a Ruling to reject the Suit at limini even during hearing of the Revision Petition. Court agreed and fixed
for final hearing of the matter.
Such development causes serious obstruction for their object to blackmail me. Mr. Kishan
Lal Bagaria, Solicitors of Sanjay persuaded my Solicitors Mr. Gouri Shankar Gupta thus he advised me for sitting in negotiation
table, which I refused. Thereafter, Gouri Shankar Gupta misguided me that Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, is very busy lawyer,
so we should also appoint an additional senior Lawyer, and under his advise I appointed his choice: Ld. Mr. Bidyut Banerjee,
Advocate. I was failed to understand that this was a game plan of Gouri Shankar Gupta in connivance with Mr. Kishan Lal Bagaria,
Solicitors of Mafia Leader Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala.
When matter was called and Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee sent message to Shri Gouri Shankar Gupta for pass over of the
matter for few minutes, since he was coming from other Court. Hon'ble Judge was ready to Passover. But at this stage, even
ignoring my loudly objection Gouri Shankar Gupta advised and Bidyut Banerjee
pleaded in the matter, and the same order was passed, which was Hon'ble Court was ready to pass on the first day of the moving
of the Revision Petition.
Since the earlier order of Injunction was passed under criminal misconduct by Mr. J. C. Moulick as such again he passed
Injunction Order against me, ignoring 16 different Rulings of the different High Courts, and Guidelines of the Supreme Court,
which I pleaded in my written arguments. More dangerous impact of the same was that my Vendors promised before High Court
to amend the schedule of the property but at the lower Court they not amended the Suit Property in compliance of their admission
and legal duty to come before Court with clean hands. In Revision Petition High Court directed for disposal of the matter
within 15 days, while matter was disposed off only after a conspiracy was hatched to commit attempt to murder my son which
was committed on 22nd February 1991 and within one month 4 days from the severe
Attempt to murder my son order was passed. Since Injunction Order was passed under connivance and under open conspiracy by
misusing the Judicial Office, as such Mr. J. C. Moulick even ignored the documents upon which said plaintiffs relied upon
for praying the Injunction Order against me. I made written Argument that though court may not rely upon the documents referred
by me, but Court cannot ignore the documents referred and relying upon by the plaintiffs of the said Suit i. e. my Vendors, who are seeking Injunction Order against me.