BALARAM PRAMANIK Vs. ARBINDA PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of damages. The allegation is that the property of the Schedule Ka to the plaint was purchased by them from one Aswini Das. The property of the Schedule Kha belonged to the plaintiffs and to his brother, Apurba. Long ago an amicable partition was effected amongst them and thereby Apurba possessed Plots Nos. 391 and 407, whereas the plaintiffs possessed Plots Nos. 392 and 408. Apurba died in 1345 B. S. leaving his widow Bhadreswari. She sold Plots Nos. 391 and 407 to the plaintiffs by a registered kobala dated 21st December, 1941, the purchase being made by the plaintiffs in the benami of defendant No. 6 and in the name of Prafulla's son. The latter died unmarried. The plaintiffs were in possession of all those 4 plots. On the 8th Agrahayan, 1371 B. S., the defendants forcibly harvested paddy grown on those lands by the plaintiffs. The suit is few recovery of Rs. 200/- as damages.

(2.) The defendants filed a written statement alleging inter alia that there was no partition between Tarak (deceased plaintiff) and Apurba. All the 4 plots of the Schedule Kha were in the possession of Apurba. After Apurba's death, his sons inherited the properties of the Schedule Kha. Bhadreswari was not Apurba's wife because one Sarada was his wife.

(3.) The learned Munsif accepted the plaintiffs' version in part and decreed the suit for Rs. 86.75 p. An appeal was preferred. The learned District Judge modified that decree and allowed Rs. 62.50 p. as damages for paddy and straw removed from the disputed plots Nos. 391 and 407 with proportionate costs. Hence this revisional application.