NEPAL CHANDRA PARIA Vs. SUSHILA DINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 22 nd of December, 1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Midnapur in Title Appeal No.86 of 1982 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30 th September, 1991 passed by learned Additional Munsif, Garhbeta, Midnapur in Title Suit No.9 of 1990. The appellants as plaintiffs filed said suit for partition in respect of Ka schedule property and for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of kha schedule property. The plaintiffs case may be summarized as follows:-

(2.) One Ashidari had 1/4 th share in ka schedule property and full share in kha schedule property. After death of Ashidari his wife Kampabala inherited and possessed said properties as his only legal heir. While Kampabala was in possession of said property she sold out the same to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 29 th of January, 1960 and that since then the plaintiffs were in possession of said purchase properties. Due to inadvertance the plot numbers and areas were wrongly noted in the kobala. Taking advantage of erroneous entries in the record of rights the defendants were trying to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property and hence was the suit for partition as well as for permanent injunction.

(3.) The respondent defendants contested said suit by filing a written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that while Kampabala was a minor the suit properties were sold out by her guardian father to these defendants by registered kobala dated 13 th of June, 1960 and since then these defendants were in possession of the same and the record of rights were accordingly prepared. It was further case of the defendants that Kampabala being a minor in 1960 had no authority to sell out any property to anybody and that alleged sale deed dated 29.01.1960 was also vitiated by fraud and false personification. The defendants took an alternative plea that they got title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and that there was a previous partition of ka schedule property.