MONORANJAN CHOWDHURY Vs. PARITOSH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs/respondents and is directed against the judgment and order dated March 21, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Other Appeal No.7 of 2005 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated December 21, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur in Other Suit No.35 of 2001.

(2.) The plaintiffs/appellants herein instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction and other consequential reliefs. They have contended that the suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint originally belonged to the defendant, Paritosh Das. The total land under the said plot in question was to the extent of 18 decimals and by 4 deeds of sale executed in the years 1967, 1968 & 1969, the defendant had sold the entire land under the plot in question in favour of the plaintiffs. He had a mud house on the suit land and he was allowed to stay thereat, which has been described in schedule 'A' to the plaint upon payment of licence fee at the rate of Rs.10/- per month and then at the rate of Rs.15/- per month. The plaintiffs had raised a two-storied pucca construction on the 'B' schedule land and they began to reside thereon. There was a passage measuring 6 ft. wide along the Western side of 'A' schedule property. In the last part of December 2000, the defendant attempted to encroach 2 ft. wide passage adjoining to 'A' schedule property. An alteration took place over it and thereafter, the plaintiffs cancelled the licence on January 15, 2001. On being directed, the defendant did not deliver khas possession of the suit property and as such, the suit has been filed for the reliefs already stated.

(3.) The defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable in its present form and it is barred by limitation and under the provision of the Specific Relief Act. Adequate Court fees have not been paid. In fact, out of 18 decimals of land, he had sold 14.5 decimals of land only from the plot in question and he is in possession of the rest 3.5 decimals of land. He is not at all a licensee as contended by the plaintiffs, rather he has been residing in his own mud-built house. The allegations against him are wrong. He has acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. The plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and so, the suit should be dismissed.