Make your own free website on



In 1947-48, Chittaranjan Ganguly, admittedly was a college student, involved in various cheating activities. In one such activity he entered in sale agreement for a property comprises under C. S. Plot No.366 under C. S. Khatian No.473, situated in the Mouza Sahapur, Calcutta 700 038, on the strength of one so-called Sale agreement with the owner of the said land. The owner of the Land, who refutes that he has executed any Sale agreement in favour of Chittaranjan Ganguly, filed a Civil Suit. During his deposition, Chittaranjan Ganguly, admitted in the Court that being a Student 1947-48, he was not in a position to pay the consideration money referred in the Sale Agreement. Therefore, Learned Court of 1st Munsif, Alipore, (Calcutta) interalia held in his Judgement in the said Civil Suit being Title Suit No.193 of 1950 as follows: -

“I therefore, come to conclusions that agreement of purchase relied upon by the defendant is only a piece of paper which was never acted upon. It contains false, fraudulent entries in its endorsements relating to receipt of consideration, Chittaranjan never possessed the land in question.”


Similarly, under his habit to cheat the various people, he cheated several persons, including one Kishori Mohan Bose, who lodged an F.I.R., against Chittaranjan Ganguly.However, in the matter Criminal Court of Learned Mr.D.Moitra, 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, held Chittaranjan Ganguly, guilty under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded an fine of Rs.2, 000/- or ID to RI for one year. I have in my possession the Certified Copy of the Judgment and related News published in the Yugantar Bengali Newpapers.


Subject to confirmation it is reported by Shri Kishan Lal Bagaria, Solicitors of Mafia Leader Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala that Chittaranjan Ganguly during hearing of one similar matter, eaten up the documentary evidence, after torn out from Court Records, which was justified from X-ray Test.  


1947-48 During the same period of 1947-48, when Chittaranjan Ganguly, was a College student, and admittedly was not in a position to pay any consideration money, caused another Sale Deed on 22.12.1947, from said Balaram Paul, which was Registered on 23rd December, 1947. Reportedly, his father was a Government employee, working at the same Office, where alleged Sale Deed was registered. In the alleged Sale Deed, the name of Balram Paul was recorded as Vendor, while name of Chittaranjan Ganguly was recorded as Purchaser. The properties described in the Sale Deed was for entire C.S.Khatian No.534 measuring 0.50 Acre, for which said Balram Paul executed another Sale Agreement in favour of Nalini Mohan Dey, and subsequently executed Sale Deed on 8.5.1954.


Between 1948 (the period when Sale Agreement was executed by Balram Paul in favour of Nalini Mohan Dey) and 1954 (the date when Sale Deed was executed on 8.5.1954 as aforesaid) one Rabindra Lal Chakraborty physically entered in a part of C.S.Khatian No.534, claiming that he had acquired the properties from said Chittaranjan Ganguly. However, in the Judgement in Title Suit No.301 of 1963 of the 5th Court of Munsif, Alipore hold ownership of his successors on the basis of the Records of Rights, after interalia holding 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 to stand.” (NOTE: GOPAL DAS WAS FATHER OF BALARAM PAUL).

However related facts are described as follows:-

23/12/1947              One Balaram Paul claiming himself as owner of the Properties measuring 0.50 Acre equivalent to 30 Cottahs comprised in C.S. Khatian No. 534 as aforesaid, under some false representations or otherwise executed one alleged deed in favour of Chittaranjan Ganguly, subsequently, which was seized by Police from the Advocate of said executor Balaram Paul himself, but not from Chittranajn Ganguly, proving that owner of the aforesaid Deed was Balaram Paul.

16/09/1948              One Nalini Mohan Dey husband of my vendors purchased properties measuring 0.60 Acre equivalent to 36 Cottas comprised in C. S. Khatian No. 530 as aforesaid from it's the then Owners. 


On the basis of an application filed by Chittaranjan Ganguly with prayer to handover the alleged Sale Deed executed by Balaram Paul in his favour, but was seized by Police with reference to one Criminal matter of the State –Vs- Noor Banu and Others Shri A.M.Khusari, Additional District Magistrate, Alipore, passed following order on 10.7.1954:

“Seen application of Shri Chittaranjan Ganguly dated 7.7.54. The matter has not been satisfactorily handled so far, Sri R.N.Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class, will please hold the enquiry at once, summon witnesses, if necessary, examine the C.I. and come to a definite finding whether the applicant is entitled to the document and if so, make it available to him. He will please take prompt action. Inform the applicant. Sd/- A.M.Kushari.”


On 18.1.1955, Shri R.N.Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class, Alipore after holding the enquiry and recording of witnesses, passed following order:


“Held an enquiry with the matter. It appears that Shri Shyama Charan Choudhury, Mukhtear, took out the exhibits along with the Sale-deed in question on behalf of the complainant and accused in that case but he did not take any receipt from either party to show that he actually made over the document to Jagabandhu Chakravorty or any body else. It also appears from evidence before that the document was seized by Police from the Clerk of Sri Bhupen Bose, Pleader, who was also been examined by me. It is also in evidence of that clerk that Balaram Pal made over that document to him for inspection by Bhupen Babu and it also appears from evidence that it is a benami deed purported to be executed by Balaram Pal in favour of Chittaranjan Ganguly simply for rectification of his title. It is, therefore, clear that Chitta Ganguly cannot be real claimant as it was not seized from his custody and also because he seems to be the benamdar of Balaram Pal. To A.D.M. Sd/- R.N.Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class. ”



On 8.2.55 order was passed in the said matter: “Perused record. I agree with the above finding. The petition of Sri Chittaranjan Ganguly is rejected.”


On 22.4.55 final order the aforesaid application of Chittaranjan Ganguly was made:

“ This matter arises out of G.R.No.660 of 1948 which was disposed of by Sri F.M.Sanyal, Magistrate, 1st Class on 4.12.51. On 8.4.52 Jagbandhu Chakravorty, the defecto complainant prayed for return of some documents filed in that case. The petition was subsequently filed for non-appearance of petitioner. On 30.8.52 the petitioner obtained an order for return of the documents from the officer-in-charge of the Record Room and accordingly took delivery of the documents in question except one deed.

The present applicant contends that one of those documents viz. A sale deed purporting to have been executed by Balaram Pal in favour of Chittaranjan Ganguly should not have been delivered to Jagbandhu Chakravorty but should have been made over to Chittaranjan Ganguly instead.

The previous application on this point was enquired by Sri R.Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class. His finding vide his order dated 15.1.55 was that the deed which was seized by Police  from the custody of the clerk of Shri Bhupen Bose Pleader, had been made over to that clerk by Balaram Pal and not by Chittaranjan Ganguly. I have perused the evidence taken by him in this connection and I agree with his findings.

Chittaranjan Ganguly’s claim for return of the deed is not supported by the weight of evidences and circumstances. The petition therefore rejected.”


1048-1954                      South Suburban Municipality (Now part of Kolkata Municipality) initially also mutated the name of  Chittaranjan Ganguly in respect of the aforesaid property which he claimed to have been purchased from Balaram Paul, but subsequently after objections raised by Nalini Mohan Dey his name was deleted after a decision taken in a meeting of the Elected Municipal Commissioners.

In the year of 1956 Government of West Bengal made Revenue Survey, in which the aforesaid properties were recorded under following R. S. Plot Nos. in the following manner:-

C.S./R.S.Khatian No.534 , R.S.Plot No.205      0.168   ,, recorded against column of owner as: in

forcible occupation of Nalini Mohan Dey since 1954.

            ,,                  ,,          ,,                 206      0.187   ,,               ,,                  ,,          ,,            

            ,,                  ,,          ,,                 207      0.031   ,,             ,,               ,,                 ,,                  ,,

               ,,                 ,,       ,,       219      0.158   ,, recorded against column of owner as: in forcible occupation of

Rabindra Lal Chakraborty.                 


00/00/1963              Title Suit No. 301 of 1963 of 4th Court of Munsif, Alipore (Kolkata) was filed by said Nalini Mohan Dey against Legal heirs of Rabindra Lal Chakraborty in respect of properties comprised in said R. S. Plot No. 219 within said R. S. Khatian No. 534, which according to Balaram Paul was tenanted to one Abdul Latif Mistry, but possessed by force by the Legal heirs of Rabindra Lal Chakraborty, from whom I purchased said property in 1988, in consideration Judgment in said Suit. 

28/09/1977              By the Judgment in Title Suit No. 301 of 1963 was dismissed by 4th Court of Munsif, Alipore filed by the husband of my Vendors on the ground that the Balaram Paul: who Executed Two Deeds in the favour of (1) Nalini Mohan Dey in 1954; and (2) adjudged Chitta Ranjan ganguly was not the Title Holder. However, Court hold ownership of the Legal Heirs of family Members of Rabindra Lal Chakraborty upon the Properties comprised in R. S. Plot No. 219, measuring more or less 10 Cottahs of land, based on Records of Rights, which was admitted as documentary evidence by all parties to Suit including said Chitta and husband of my vendors. On the basis of the said selfsame documents ownership of my Vendors only affirmed in respect of R. S. Plot No. 205, 206 and 207 as aforesaid only.


In the said Title Suit No.301 of 1963, the Learned 4th Court of Munsif at Alipore, pronounced Judgement dated 28.9.1977 and held interalia as under: -


 “Plff. Traces his title from Balram pal son of Gopal Ch.Pal stating him to be raiyat in respect of land recorded in suit Khatian no.534 and also from Abdul Latif Mistry who was an under tenant of Gopal Pal in respect of C.S.Dag (plot) 311 by virtue of a registered agreement for sale of 3.9.48(ext.7 (a) and ext.2, Sale Deed dt.31.5.62.”


“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 to stand.”


“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 the suit land is held to be that of a trespasser.”


The suit was dismissed.


When Ld.Court held that entries in the record of rights have presumption of their correctness, and that neither Balaram nor Gopal nor Abdul Latif was even shown as Raiyat in respect of Suit Khatian, the same finding of the Ld.Court have clear implications that Deeds executed by Balaram Pal, in respect of such Khatian i.e. C.S./ R.S.Khatian No.534 as aforesaid (whether in favour of Chittaranjan Ganguly or Nalini Mohan Dey, ) have no legal value. However, on the basis of the findings of the same Judgement whatever entry is recorded in the same document i.e. the records of rights relating with R.S.Khatian No.534, have presumption of their correctness, undisputedly and binding upon all party to suit. 


However, Plaintiff of the Suit Nalini Mohan Dey preferred appeal against impugned Judgement dated 28.9.1977, being pronounced in the Title Suit No.301 of 1963 by the Ld.4th Court of Munsif at Alipore (calcutta). Appeal was registered as Title Appeal No.1179 of 1979 of the 11th Addl.District Judge at Alipore (calcutta). The same was dismissed by the Judgement dated 7th August 1979, pronounced by Shri A.P.Bhattacharyya, Addl.District Judge, Alipore, interalia holding that “though not agreeing with the findings of the learned Court below, I hold that the Judgement and decree passed by it should be affirmed and should not be interfered with.”



From the aforesaid language it appears that during the Observation made by the Ld. Judge Extra Judicial mind was applied, otherwise aforesaid mandatory holding part was should not have affirmed the findings of the Learned Court Below. Without prejudice I humbly submit that it is a matter of examining: whether observation part of the Judgment was recorded by Mr. Tara Prasana Mukherjee, Advocate, who was just retired from the Office of the Additional District Judge at Alipore, just before his acceptance of assignment as Advocate on behalf of the defendants in the said Suit. Otherwise, contradictory two parts in the selfsame Judgments should not have exist. As a result, ignoring the aforesaid Holding part of the Judgment Chittaranjan Ganguly blackmailed me by misusing aforesaid observation part of the Judgment.

Kindly see documentay evidences proving misuse of the powers by Shri Jyoti Basu