STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. MUKTAKESHI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals which arise out of the same judgment have been heard analogously and the present judgment will govern them all. Title Suit No. ,231 of 1967 filed by Smt. Muktakesi Das (respondent in S.A. NO. 1797 of 1971), Title Suit No. 232 of 1967 was filed by Hrisikesh Das (respondent in S.A. 1798 of 1971), Title Suit No. 233 of 1967 was filed by Netai Charan Das (respondent in S.A. No. 1799 of 1971) and Title Suit No. 234 of 1967 was filed by Gourhari Das who is respondent in S.A. No. 1800 of 1971. Common questions of fact and law were involved in the four suits which were heard analogously by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Contai and disposed of by a common judgment. The four title appeals preferred by the State against the judgment and decree passed in the said four suits were also heard analogously by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapur and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Plaintiffs of the above suits filed the suits for declaration and permanent injunction on the allegations that the plaintiff of each of the suits acquired title to the suit properties of the respective suits from defendant No. 2 Prafulla Kumar Das. husband of the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 231 of 1967 and father of the plaintiffs in three other suits, by virtue of a deed of Nirupanpatra dated 12 Agrahayan 1365 B.S. and that the plaintiff of each of the suits was in possession of the said lands exclusively. The plaintiffs came to, know in Jaistha 1373 B.S. that the suit lands of each of the suits had vested in the State as per deduction Case No. 5 under section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The further case of the plaintiff was that 26.75?) acres of agricultural and non-agricultural lands covered by the Nirupanpatra were retained by the defendant No. 2 Prafulla Kumar Das by filing a statement in 'B' form and there was no reason for any proceeding under section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act in respect of the suit lands and that the said proceeding in which the plaintiffs of the four suits were not parties was illegal, ultra vines inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff. Notice under section 80 C.P.C. was duly served by on the State of West Bengal by each of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The State of West Bengal contested these suits by tiling written statements in which it was pleaded inter alia that the Nirupanpatra was a collusive document and that as a result of the enquiry under section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act some transfers made by the defendant No. 2 were found to be bona fide and consequently the quantity of land transferred was to be deducted from the retained lands of the defendant No. 2 and the suit lands were thus deducted under the provisions of section 5A(3) (ii) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.