BISWANATH MAJI Vs. KARUNA SINDHU DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Deficit Court fee has since been put in on 6th of November, 2003 vide Filing No. A-14522. The defect thus stands removed.

(2.) This appeal arises out of an order of remand. The plaintiffs name was recorded in the record-of-rights as bargadar in respect of the suit property under the defendant. He claims a presumption under section 21B of the Land Reforms Act and prayed for a declaration that he is a bargadar and for injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing his exercise of right of cultivation as bargadar on the suit property. In the suit the defendant, in his written statement, had disputed the status of the plaintiff as bargadar. Issues were framed. In the written statement, the defendant admitted that'the plaintiff cultivates his land but disputed that he cultivates his land as barsadar. In the evidence the defendant admitted that the plaintiff is a bargadar under him in respect of the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted the relief.

(3.) On appeal the learned Lower Appellate Court had found that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction in view of section 21(3) of the Land Reforms Act and, therefore, remanded the case to the learned Trial Court for making reference under section 21(2) of the Land Reforms Act and then to proceed with the suit.