MINOR SUKHEN BISWAS Vs. NIRMALA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal heirs and representatives of original defendant in Title Suit No.87 of 1993 being the substituted defendants are the appellants assailing the judgment and decree of affirmation passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Krishnagar in Title Appeal No.87 of 2003 on 31st August, 2004.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the substituted plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as the respondents) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in the 1st Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Krishnagar (at the relevant point of time designated as the Munsif 1st Court) stating, inter alia, that all that peace and parcel of 2 decimal of land situated in Mouza Hatishala and recorded in RS khatian No.1086 being plot No.968/2216 is a portion of entire 5 decimal of land in plot No.968 was originally owned by one Panchu Sardar. The said Panchu Sardar took settlement of the said land from the erstwhile Zamindar. While possessing the said land, the original plaintiff requested the said Panchu Sardar to settle 2 decimal of land in favour of him. Accordingly, the said Panchu Sardar settled 2 decimal of land out of 5 decimal of land in plot No.968 in favour of the plaintiff and accepted rent from him by issuing dakhilas. At the time of RS operation, the said 2 decimal of land was recorded in the name of the original plaintiff in bata plot No.968/2216. After the abolition of intermediary rights over the estate by operation of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the plaintiff became direct raiyat under the State of West Bengal and he used to possess the said land paying rent to the Government of West Bengal. He also constructed a house over the suit property and has been possessing the same openly, continuously, uninterruptedly and without any disturbance from anybody including the defendant. Accordingly the alternative case of the plaintiff is that he had acquired good and indefeasable title over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

(3.) It is further stated by the plaintiff that while the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, the defendant tried to disturb his possession which compelled him to file a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant which was registered as Title Suit No.101 of 1984. However, the plaintiff withdrew the said suit with the leave of the court. Subsequently, on 22nd April, 1990, the defendant forcibly and illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property. It is further stated by the plaintiff that during LR operation, the suit property was recorded in the name of the plaintiff in draft Record of Rights. However in column No.23 (remark column) of the said draft Record of Rights, the name of the defendant was illegally recorded by the concerned authority. According to the plaintiff such recording of the name of the defendant in column No.23 is absolutely erroneous. It is alleged that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit property. He illegally dispossessed the plaintiff sometimes in 1990 and accordingly he filed the suit for eviction, recovery of khas possession of the suit property and other consequential reliefs.