ANANTA KUMAR SAHA Vs. AJOY KUMAR BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has alleged that the disputed plot No. 202 having an area of 65 cents appertains to the khatian No. 1825 and the plot No. 202/2343 appertains to the Record of Rights No. 1142 of Mouza Jagadanandapur in the district of Nadia. The subject matter of the suit was held by one Sonai S.K. in utbandi system under the zamindar Pal Choudhury of Bethuadahari. He died leaving his two sons, Chatui and Chhoban, who inherited the property. On the 4th Aug., 1943, Chhoban S.K. sold his 8 annas share in the property by registered kobala to the plaintiff's father, Satkari, pro-defendant No. 4. Then by a registered sale deed dated the 25th Aug., 1943, Chatui sold his 8 annas share in the property to Gopal Chandra, pro-defendant No. 5. Thereafter, Satkari, and Gopal possessed that property. By a registered sale deed dated the 20th Aug., 1956, Satkari sold his 8 annas share in the property to Gopal Chandra and thus the latter acquired 16 annas lattle thereto. Satkari executed a deed of release for that property in favour of proforma defendant No. 5. Then Gopal Chandra transferred 91 decimals of land appertaining to the plot No. 202 to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 20th Aug., 1956. After the purchase, he began to possess the land 22 cents of land of that plot was included in the National High Way. Then the defendant No. 1 (Dasu) and defendant No. 2 (Jamat) filed an application under Sec. 44(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act against him alleging that 25 years ago their father had been staying on 15 decimals of land appertaining to the plot No. 202 by constructing nuts thereon. In that way, they managed to get their names recorded as under-raiyats regarding that plot under the plaintiff in the R. S. Khatian No. 1825/1. But the plaintiff never gave any settlement to them. Then the defendant No. 3 filed an objection under Sec. 44(2a) of the Act against him and alleged that he purchased 65 decimals of land from defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by a registered kobala dated 9.8.1958, That objection was illegally allowed by the A.S.O. The plaintiff preferred an appeal but lost the same and thus 16 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 202 was illegally recorded in favour of the defendant No. 3 in the R. S. khatian No. 3 in the R. S. khatian No. 1142. The suit is for declaration of title and recovery of actual possession.

(2.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement. Their defence is that previously they lived on plot No. 187. But they had to face difficulties. So they obtained permission of Satkari and of Gopal Chandra and erected thatched huts on the disputed land. Subsequently they sold the property to defendant No. 3.

(3.) Defendant No. 3 put in a written statement denying the plaintiff's allegations. He has alleged that Sonai and his two sons had no title or possession. The alleged sales by Chhoban and Chatui are fraudulent and collusive transactions. Dasu and Jamat used to live on the plot No. 202 for more than 30 yeas by raising huts thereon. Satkari Biswas was an employee of the landlord. Dasu and Jamat paid rent to him, but he did not gram any dukhila to them. They were tenants and they made a valid sale to him on the 9th Aug., 1958. The entries in the Records of Rights are correct, Dasu and Jamat possessed that land adversely for more than 30 years and acquired title thereto by adverse possession. The other property, which measures 16 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 202/2343, belonged to Sashi Mai. He possessed the land for more than 12 years by paying rent. Defendant No. 3 purchased that property from Sashi's heirs by a registered kobala dated 6-7-1953 and since then he is possession thereof adversely for more than 12 years.