25.02.2026 Ct. No.13 Sl. No.12 akd F. A. T. 39 of 2015 (C. A. N. 9 of 2026) [Dhirendranath Maity -Vs- Ganesh Chandra Mahapatra & Ors.] Mr. Swagata Datta … … for the appellant Mr. Atanu Chakraborty Mr. Apratim Bhattacharya Ms. Rimi Ghosh … … for respondent nos. 1 to 5 1. The subject appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court at Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No. 407 of 2008. 2. The plaintiff/appellant had filed the suit with two-fold prayers. The first was for partition against the defendant no.1 viz. Ganesh Chandra Mahapatra. The second set of prayers was for a declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant nos.2 to 5. The other defendants i.e. State authorities were officials of the tribal department. A notice under Section 80 was duly given. No relief was however, prayed against the State authorities. 3. The plaintiff/appellant claimed that the original CS Plot was jointly owned by Rai Charan Mahapatra and Santosh Mahapatra. Rai Charan Mahapatra subsequently transferred the property in favour of Kartick Mahapatra. Kartick is stated to have sold a portion of the suit land comprising of 1.15 acres in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. one Satish Chandra Maity. 2 4. The learned trial Judge however, found that the prayer for partition could not be entertained inasmuch as the trace of title of the plaintiff from Rai Charan Mahapatra, whose name is recorded in the CS records and subsequently in the RS records and LR records was not demonstrated or established by the appellant. The plot number in the LR records differed from the corresponding RS plot numbers. A undemarcated and unascertained portion in the property could not have been partitioned as has been rightly held by the learned trial Judge. 5. In so far as the claim for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant nos.2 to 5 in the suit is concerned, the learned trial Judge found that the appellant has not been able to show demarcation and the extent of the land claimed by him. The mouza map was not produced. The existence of the mouza map was relevant for determination of the claims of the plaintiff inasmuch as the LR plot numbers differed from the RS plot numbers. At one place, the LR Plot number was mentioned as 163/712 of RS Plot No. 652. After conversion, the said RS Plot No. 652, inter alia, also became LR Plot No. 163/612. 6. The learned trial Judge further found that non- impleadment of Kartick Mahapatra and/or his legal heirs was an impediment that the plaintiff had faced in obtaining the decree in question. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid findings of the learned trial Judge, this Court is of the view that the same calls for no interference whatsoever. The learned trial Judge has after due analysis of the evidence of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants dismissed the Title Suit being T.S. No. 407 of 2008. 3 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, FAT 39 of 2015 fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. Pending connected applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. All parties shall act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)