SATYA CHARAN BISWAS Vs. MINOR AKSHAYA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.87 and the decree thereof passed by Sri P.K.Banerjee Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Krishnanagore in T.S. No. 60/85.

(2.) The respondent of the present appeal as plaintiffs filed the suit for partition alleging, inter alia, that the suit property originally belonged to one Sarba Chandra Mondal and his name stood recorded in respect of the suit property in the C.S. record of rights. Sarba Chandra Mondal died in 1356 B.S. leaving behind his two married daughters Subhanga and Basanta Bala, both of whom inherited the property of their father and remained in possession of the same. It was further alleged that Subhanga died in the year 1369 B.S. leaving behind the defendants of the suit as her heirs and Basanta Bala died in the year 1367 B.S. leaving behind her only daughter Dasi Bala. Dasi Bala subsequently died leaving behind the plaintiffs as her heirs. It was further alleged that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were educated persons and the plaintiffs entrusted them with the work of looking after the recording of the suit property in R.S. operation. Taking this opportunity, the defendants got their names wrongly recorded for the entire suit property. Due to such erroneous recording, plaintiffs were facing difficulty in possessing the suit property jointly and they were constrained to file the suit.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement admitting that the suit property originally belonged to Sarba Chandra, but alleging that Sarba Chandra died in the year 1350 B.S. leaving behind his daughter Subhanga as heir and his other daughter, namely, Basanta Bala had pre-deceased her father leaving a daughter Dasi Bala. When Sarba Chandra died, he was survived by his daughter Subhanga, who inherited the suit property left by Sarba Chandra and in this way on the death of their mother Subhanga, the defendants inherited the entire suit property. It was further alleged that the suit property was correctly recorded in the R.S. record of rights and the defendants were in exclusive possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest in the suit property.