Case Name: Sushil Kumar Paik & another v.

Harendra Nath Samadder & another [55 DLR

(AD) (2003) 9]
Relevant Laws: Sections 5 & 56 of the Specific Relief Act (Act 1 of 1877)
Fact in Short: The disputed property in the suit was bought by some Jadob Chandra Roy, in the
name of Radhika Mohan Roy. The plaintiffs-respondent argued that the land was peacefully
possessed by them. Whereas the defendants-petitioner claimed that the land was gifted in favour
of the Subhasini High School by Khitish Chandra Roy, son of Jadob Chandra Roy. Moreover,
they claimed that the deed submitted by the plaintiffs-respondent was forged one. Then the
original suit was filed. The trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that
decision defendant preferred an appeal. The High Court Division upon hearing the parties, by
judgment remanded the suit to the trial de novo on the basis of the evidence of record.
The fresh suit was fixed for argument when the defendants filed an application for framing an
additional issue, that is, whether the deed submitted by the plaintiffs, which was registered
before the sub-register was forged or not. The Trial Court rejected the application for framing
additional issues regarding the authenticity of the deed, against which the revisional application
was filed before the High Court Division. The High Court Division decided that the suit was for
permanent injunction and there was hardly any scope for the trial court to decide as to whether
the plaintiff deed was forged or not. The High Court Division therefore summarily rejected the
revisional application against which this leave petition was filed before the Appellate Division.
Issues:
1. Whether the additional issue, that is, whether the deed submitted by the plaintiffs was forged,
can be framed.
2. Whether the Trial Court and High Court Division were right in their decision.
Decision: It was held by the Appellate Division that the question of authenticity of the deed is to
be decided in a separate suit and the Trial Court and High Court Division have rightly held that
in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter an issue whether the registered deed is forged or not
cannot be decided. So the petition was dismissed.
Reasoning: In a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter issues regarding the authenticity of
deed cannot be decided. For this separate suit has to be filed. Therefore, in the present suit an
issue, whether the deed was forged, cannot be framed as additional issue.