RAVI SWAMY vs DEEPIKA JAIDKA AND ANR.

Form No. J(2)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side






Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi






FAT 240 of 2026
IA No: CAN 1 of 2026

Mr. Ravi Swamy
Vs.
Deepika Jaidka and another

With

FAT 241 of 2026
IA No: CAN 1 of 2026

Mr. Ravi Swamy
Vs.
Deepika Jaidka and another




For the appellant : Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti,
Mr. Uttam Kumar Kamila

Heard on : 13.11.2026


Judgment on : 13.11.2026









Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-



1. In view of identical issues being involved, both the appeals are taken
up for hearing together.
2. The present appeals have been preferred against the rejection of
counter claims filed by the appellant in two suits, under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground of non-

2

disclosure of cause of action. The counter claims in each of the
appeals were filed in respect of suits filed by the respondents for
eviction of the appellant, in which the appellant filed the counter
claims seeking a declaration that the defendant/appellant is in “ bona
fide adverse possession” in respect of the suit premises and for
consequential reliefs.
3. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the submissions of the
parties, came to the conclusion that in view of the admission of the
defendant that their father was a tenant in respect of the premises
and that the appellant continued in the suit premises after the demise
of his father, no cause of action for claiming adverse possession was
disclosed.

4. Even on a perusal of the counter claims, which are placed by learned
counsel for the appellant in the appeals, we find that the appellant
has categorically admitted in paragraph no.7 thereof that after the
demise of the original landlord, the property went into the hands of an
administrator and as per the request of such administrator, all the
tenants/occupiers of the flats of the suit building, including the
defendant/appellant and his father, participated and paid equal share
of amount for their respective flats after collection from all tenants
and co-occupiers in terms of the decision taken in the meeting to clear
all the outstanding property tax. In paragraph no.9, the
defendant/appellant goes one step further and admits that as the
entire suit premises were lying in a dilapidated condition, all the

3

tenants/co-occupiers, including the present defendant, incurred huge
expenses for maintenance of the building including repair, etc.
5. In the very next paragraph, as a continuation thereof, it is pleaded
that on March 07, 2009, the father of the defendant, an admitted
tenant, died intestate and the defendant occupied the suit flat “in
adverse possession” since no one from the side of the legal heirs of the
original landlord R.K. Jaidka claimed any rent or “possessional right”
from him.
6. Apart from the specific particulars of the starting point of adverse
possession as well as from when the possession of the defendant
became hostile against the true owner being not disclosed, we find
categorical admission in the counter claims that not only the
defendant’s father but the defendant himself also claimed to be a
tenant in respect of the subject properties in both the suits.
7. As per the averments of the counter claims, the defendant was a
tenant and continued in possession of the suit flat after the demise of
his father, also an admitted tenant. The claim of adverse possession,
as mentioned in paragraph no.10 of the counter claims, is entirely
premised on the sole allegation that there was no claim of rent or
possessional rights from the side of the legal heirs of the original
landlord.

4

8. However, it is the point of induction which is relevant for adjudicating
whether the possession of an occupier is adverse to the true owner or
not.
9. Once inducted as a tenant, one cannot automatically become an
adverse possessor merely because no rent is paid by him or claimed
by the landlord from him.
10. Thus, within the four corners of the counter claims, even on a
comprehensive and meaningful reading of the same, we do not find
any disclosure of cause of action for claiming adverse possession,
which is the plinth of the counter claims.
11. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting
the counter claims in each of the suits under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
12. Thus, there is no use in keeping the present frivolous appeals pending
further.
13. Accordingly, FAT 240 of 2026 and FAT 241 of 2026 are dismissed,
thereby affirming the impugned judgments and deemed decrees, both
dated May 15, 2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Eighth Court at Alipore, District: South 24 Parganas in the
counter claims arising out of Ejectment Suit No. 30 of 2025 and
Ejectment Suit No. 29 of 2025 respectively, affirming the rejection of
such counter claims under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.

5

14. Consequentially, the applications, bearing CAN 1 of 2026 in each of
the appeals, stand dismissed as well.
15. There will be no order as to costs.
16. A formal decree in each of the appeals be drawn up accordingly.








(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
I agree.




(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)


AD-09-10
TN