SANATAN MONDAL Vs. SREEPATI MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants being appellants have challenged the judgment dated 31 st July, 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court at Contai, Midnapur (West) in Title Appeal No.75 of 1997. It was passed in terms of an order of remand dated 28 th February, 2007 passed in S. A. No.15 of 1999.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the Title Suit No.149 of 1994 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Contai, Midnapur (West) alleging inter alia that 'Ka' schedule land originally belonged to Padu Prodhan and his sister Dayamoyee. Dayamoyee predeceased Padu Prodhan having no issue and Padu Prodhan became absolute owner of entire 'Ka' schedule property. Padu Prodhan, father of defendant No.4 and maternal grandfather of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 3 and 5 died on 01.02.1943 leaving behind Nirada as his wife and defendant No.4 Anandamoyee as his daughter. On his death Nirada acquired life interest in the 'ka' schedule property as per old Hindu law. After promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 she became the absolute owner of the 'ka' schedule property. She executed a deed of gift in respect of said 'ka' schedule in favour of plaintiff on 12 th July, 1969 and since then plaintiff became absolute owner in possession of 'ka' schedule property. The defendant No.1 4 are residing in the varanda of the plaintiff's house as mentioned in 'ka-1' schedule of the plaint with permission of the plaintiff with further condition that they would leave the suit verandah after construction of their own house. As they did not vacate 'ka-1' schedule property and threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from 'ka' schedule land the plaintiff was compelled to file said suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit alleging inter alia that Padu Prodhan died on 1 st of February, 1960 and 'ka' schedule property devolved upon his wife Nirada and daughter Anandamoyee (defendant No.4) in equal shares. The defendant No.4 along with other defendants and plaintiff are residing in the suit land. Nirada was insane and had no capacity to execute any deed of gift and the deed of gift, if any, was obtained by plaintiff by way of false personification. The alternative case of the defendants is that if the plaintiff got suit property through any deed of gift then the defendants acquired title to the same by way of adverse possession of the same over 12 years and the plaintiffs' case was liable to be dismissed.