PATAL CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY Vs. PULIN BEHARI CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the Court of first instance the issue Nos. 3 and 4 are as follows :

(2.) These two issues arise out of the subject matter, i.e., declaration of the plaintiffs' right, title and interest in the properties noted in the schedule below and eviction of defendant from schedule B property being part and parcel of schedule A upon declaring the defendant's licence duly revoked. The schedule A is the land and structure butted and bounded by certain premises given in the schedule. Schedule B is the two rooms as fully described in the schedule B therein. According to the plaintiffs, such schedule B is part and parcel of schedule A. Court held that from the evidence it cannot be accepted that schedule in the mortgage deed and schedule in the sale deeds are different. Defendant contended that R.S. record is wrong. Plaintiffs also challenged the R.S. record to the extent that defendant is a licensee in respect of rooms only.

(3.) According to the Court of first instance, R.S. record to some extent supports the plaintiffs. The defendant challenged the entire R.S. record. The burden of proof lied upon him. There is no satisfactory evidence either oral or documentary on the side of the defendant which rebutted the presumption of the R.S. record. Plaintiffs had not been able to prove that entry in R.S. record so far 14 satak is concerned is wrong. Except the uncorroborated oral testimony of the defendant himself, there is nothing on the record to show that the joint property was purchased out of joint family fund or parties had ancestral property somewhere else. Therefore, the defendant is a licensee in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for khas possession etc. The first appellate Court held that the defendant had hopelessly failed to prove that the property was purchased from the joint fund or that the property in question was joint Revenue Officer. Long after purchasing this property by Basanta Kumari, the C.S. record of rights was published. From the C.S. record of rights it will appear that the suit property was recorded in the name of Basanta Kumari Debi. The predecessors of the plaintiffs and defendant lived jointly. It suffers another set back if the mortgage deed is taken into consideration. The mortgage is in respect of a different property and there is no mention that their XX ancestors lived jointly in the property which was a joint property. In the circumstances, it is clear that the suit property was the exclusive property of Basanta Kumari Debi from whom the plaintiffs got the same. The learned Munsif relied on the R.S. record of rights and held that the defendant was a licensee under the plaintiffs. It is not the defendant's case that they AIR possessing the suit property as trespasser or a tenant. That being so the defendant must have entered into suit property on the strength of an arrangement and if the plaintiffs' case are considered in the light mentioned above there is no escape from the conclusion that he entered in the suit property as a licensee. The plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that the defendant is possessing the suit property as a licensee under them.