ARUN KUMAR MONDAL PRIYANKA MANDAL vs HAGRU GORAIN & ORS — SA/193/2016
Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 05th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0032832016
Filing Number
SA/3283/2016
Filing Date
17-Apr-2015
Registration No
SA/193/2016
Registration Date
17-Apr-2015
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 57 )
Judicial Branch
SECOND APPEAL (SA) SECTION
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ARUN KUMAR MONDAL PRIYANKA MANDAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.HAGRU GORAIN & ORS
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
Summary: Arun Kumar Mondal v. Hagru Gorain (SA 193/2016) Court: High Court at Calcutta Judge: Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay Date of Judgment: May 5, 2026 Decision The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, setting aside the First Appellate Court's reversal and restoring the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff was declared the absolute, lawful owner of 1.40 acres of land (derived from C.S. Plot No. 2816, finalized as L.R. Plot No. 3057) with a decree for confirmation and recovery of possession. Key Facts - The original land (C.S. Plot No. 2816, 8.42 acres) was partitioned between two co-owners in 1931 - Rashbihari Banerjee sold 8.42 acres to Tinkari Chakraborty and his brothers in 1959 - Tinkari's individual share was 1.40 acres (1/6th of total) - Tinkari sold his 1.40 acres to the plaintiff by registered deed in 1983 - A clerical error during settlement resulted in the plot being recorded as R.S. No. 3047 instead of R.S. No. 3057 - Defendant No. 1 was the attesting witness to the 1983 sale deed - Defendants later claimed ownership through a 2012 deed allegedly from Tinkari's daughter (Parul Chakraborty) Main Issues & Findings 1. Vagueness of Property Description (Question 1) — ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVELY The High Court held that the absence of boundaries in the property schedule does NOT render the description vague when: - A specific plot number (C.S. Plot No. 2816) is clearly identified - An exact area (1.40 acres) is specified - The parent title is established through registered deeds - A prior civil court decree (1982 in Title Suit No. 32 of 1980) had already declared the plot identifier error as "void and non-binding" The Court established that plot numbers—being official government survey markers—are the most precise identification tools and implicitly reference fixed boundaries within state registries. 2. Possession & Section 34 of Specific Relief Act (Question 2) — ANSWERED NEGATIVELY The First Appellate Court erred in holding that: - The plaintiff's prayer for "confirmation of possession" was insufficient - The suit was barred by Section 34 (Specific Relief Act) for not seeking "recovery" The High Court found: - The plaintiff explicitly prayed for a permanent injunction (not temporary), which constitutes "further relief" satisfying Section 34 - For vacant/danga land, possession follows title—once title is established, legal constructive possession is presumed - The court can mould relief under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC to grant recovery of possession where title is proven but possession is disputed - Defendant No. 1's status as an attesting witness to the 1983 deed estops him from later denying the plaintiff's title Critical Legal Principles Endorsed 1. Registered deeds carry formidable presumptions of validity and cannot be lightly overturned 2. Revenue records are NOT title documents—mere errors in land records cannot defeat registered conveyances 3. Nemo dat quod non habet (Section 48, TPA)—Tinkari completely divested himself of the 1.40 acres in 1983; his daughter inherited nothing, making the 2012 deed void *ab initio* 4. Principle of Identity Over Nomenclature—clerical errors in plot numbering must be resolved by examining the totality of the parent title and historical lineage 5. Civil courts must prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities and avoid multiplying lawsuits Decrees Issued - Plaintiff declared absolute, lawful owner of Schedule-II property (1.40 acres) - Decree for confirmation and recovery of vacant possession granted - 2012 deed (Exhibit A) declared fraudulent, void *ab initio*, and non-binding - Defendants ordered to vacate immediately if unlawfully in possession - Respond This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
For Judgment
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
04-May-2026
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
04-May-2026
For Judgment
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
30-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
06-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
06-Jan-2026
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
05-Jan-2026
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
26-Nov-2025
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
26-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
25-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
24-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
21-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
20-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
19-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
18-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
17-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
14-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
13-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
13-Nov-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
28-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
-
27-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
21-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
20-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
19-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
18-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
14-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
13-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
12-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
11-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
08-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
07-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
06-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
05-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
04-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
02-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
01-Aug-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
31-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
30-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
29-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
28-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
25-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
24-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
23-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
22-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
21-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
18-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
17-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
16-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
15-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
14-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
10-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
09-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
08-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
07-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
04-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
03-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
02-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
01-Jul-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
30-Jun-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
26-Jun-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
25-Jun-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
25-Mar-2025
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
25-Mar-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
26-Feb-2025
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
26-Feb-2025
Part Heard Matters
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
14-Feb-2025
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
28-Nov-2024
Second Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
18-Sep-2024
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
18-Sep-2024
Second Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
23-Aug-2024
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
23-Aug-2024
Second Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
20-Aug-2024
To Be Mentioned
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
07-Aug-2024
Hon'ble Justice Ananya BandyopadhyayView PDF
-
07-Aug-2024
To Be Mentioned
Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
-
05-Mar-2024
Hon'ble Justice Supratim BhattacharyaView PDF
-
05-Mar-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
05-Mar-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
04-Mar-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
29-Feb-2024
Hon'ble Justice Supratim BhattacharyaView PDF
-
29-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
28-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
27-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
26-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
19-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
12-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
09-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
08-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
07-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
06-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
05-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
02-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
01-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
31-Jan-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
29-Jan-2024
Hon'ble Justice Supratim BhattacharyaView PDF
-
29-Jan-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
26-Jan-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
25-Jan-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
22-Jan-2024
Hon'ble Justice Supratim BhattacharyaView PDF
-
22-Jan-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
22-Jan-2024
To Be Mentioned
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
19-Jan-2024
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
17-Jan-2024
Hon'ble Justice Supratim BhattacharyaView PDF
-
17-Jan-2024
To Be Mentioned
Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
-
15-Dec-2023
Specially Fixed Matters
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
14-Dec-2023
Specially Fixed Matters
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
13-Dec-2023
Specially Fixed Matters
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
12-Dec-2023
Specially Fixed Matters
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
11-Dec-2023
Specially Fixed Matters
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
08-Dec-2023
Specially Fixed Matters
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
07-Dec-2023
Specially Fixed Matters
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
06-Dec-2023
Specially Fixed Matters
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
05-Dec-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
04-Dec-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
30-Nov-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
28-Nov-2023
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy ChowdhuryView PDF
-
28-Nov-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
16-Nov-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
18-Oct-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
17-Oct-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
13-Oct-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
12-Oct-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
11-Oct-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
10-Oct-2023
Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
-
14-Jun-2023
LD. Registrar Admn. (L and Om)View PDF
-
12-Apr-2023
Hon'ble Justice Bivas PattanayakView PDF
-
12-Apr-2023
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
-
11-Apr-2023
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
-
10-Apr-2023
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
-
06-Apr-2023
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
-
05-Apr-2023
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
-
04-Apr-2023
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
-
03-Apr-2023
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
-
31-Mar-2023
For Hearing
Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
-
15-Feb-2023
LD. Registrar Admn. (L and Om)View PDF
-
10-Mar-2022
Hon'ble Justice Biswajit BasuView PDF
-
10-Mar-2022
Hon'ble Justice Biswajit BasuView PDF
-
10-Mar-2022
Application In Connection With Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Biswajit Basu
-
09-Mar-2022
Application In Connection With Appeal
Hon'ble Justice Biswajit Basu
-
05-Oct-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Apr-2015
Case filed
Registration No. SA/193/2016
Summary: Arun Kumar Mondal v. Hagru Gorain (SA 193/2016) Court: High Court at Calcutta Judge: Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay Date of Judgment: May 5, 2026 Decision The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, setting aside the First Appellate Court's reversal and restoring the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff was declared the absolute, lawful owner of 1.40 acres of land (derived from C.S. Plot No. 2816, finalized as L.R. Plot No. 3057) with a decree for confirmation and recovery of possession. Key Facts - The original land (C.S. Plot No. 2816, 8.42 acres) was partitioned between two co-owners in 1931 - Rashbihari Banerjee sold 8.42 acres to Tinkari Chakraborty and his brothers in 1959 - Tinkari's individual share was 1.40 acres (1/6th of total) - Tinkari sold his 1.40 acres to the plaintiff by registered deed in 1983 - A clerical error during settlement resulted in the plot being recorded as R.S. No. 3047 instead of R.S. No. 3057 - Defendant No. 1 was the attesting witness to the 1983 sale deed - Defendants later claimed ownership through a 2012 deed allegedly from Tinkari's daughter (Parul Chakraborty) Main Issues & Findings 1. Vagueness of Property Description (Question 1) — ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVELY The High Court held that the absence of boundaries in the property schedule does NOT render the description vague when: - A specific plot number (C.S. Plot No. 2816) is clearly identified - An exact area (1.40 acres) is specified - The parent title is established through registered deeds - A prior civil court decree (1982 in Title Suit No. 32 of 1980) had already declared the plot identifier error as "void and non-binding" The Court established that plot numbers—being official government survey markers—are the most precise identification tools and implicitly reference fixed boundaries within state registries. 2. Possession & Section 34 of Specific Relief Act (Question 2) — ANSWERED NEGATIVELY The First Appellate Court erred in holding that: - The plaintiff's prayer for "confirmation of possession" was insufficient - The suit was barred by Section 34 (Specific Relief Act) for not seeking "recovery" The High Court found: - The plaintiff explicitly prayed for a permanent injunction (not temporary), which constitutes "further relief" satisfying Section 34 - For vacant/danga land, possession follows title—once title is established, legal constructive possession is presumed - The court can mould relief under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC to grant recovery of possession where title is proven but possession is disputed - Defendant No. 1's status as an attesting witness to the 1983 deed estops him from later denying the plaintiff's title Critical Legal Principles Endorsed 1. Registered deeds carry formidable presumptions of validity and cannot be lightly overturned 2. Revenue records are NOT title documents—mere errors in land records cannot defeat registered conveyances 3. Nemo dat quod non habet (Section 48, TPA)—Tinkari completely divested himself of the 1.40 acres in 1983; his daughter inherited nothing, making the 2012 deed void *ab initio* 4. Principle of Identity Over Nomenclature—clerical errors in plot numbering must be resolved by examining the totality of the parent title and historical lineage 5. Civil courts must prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities and avoid multiplying lawsuits Decrees Issued - Plaintiff declared absolute, lawful owner of Schedule-II property (1.40 acres) - Decree for confirmation and recovery of vacant possession granted - 2012 deed (Exhibit A) declared fraudulent, void *ab initio*, and non-binding - Defendants ordered to vacate immediately if unlawfully in possession - Respond This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts