SK LUTFAR RAHAMAN Vs. ABU HOSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration and for injunction. The appellant in this appeal challenged the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Howrah in Title Appeal No. 185 of 1986 on November 22, 1988 affirming the Judgment and decree dated June 28. 1986 passed by the learned Munsif, Amta. Howrah in Title Suit No.8 of 1984. The case made out by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint in brief is as follows: The properties measuring 1 acre 32 decimals has been described in Schedule-'Ka' to the plaint. The said Schedule-'Ka' property originally belonged to one Hossain Baksh. A registered deed of settlement dated 22/05/1970 was executed by Hossain Baksh in respect of the disputed properties along with other properties in favour of his wife Mati Bibi. Possession was delivered in her favour. She cultivated some properties personally and the rest were given under Barga cultivation. She sold suit properties to the plaintiff through seven separate registered deeds for a consideration of Rs.14,000/- on 20/08/1974. The plaintiff inducted bargadars in respect of some plots while the rest were under his personal cultivation. On the date of his purchase he sold one bigha to Lakshman Chandra Mondal for a consideration of Rs. 1.500/-; Lakshman reconveyed the said one bigha as per oral agreement in favour of the plaintiff by a registered Kobala dated 23/O6/1981. He has also been paying rent in respect of the suit properties since the date of his purchase. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the properties in suit. Panchanan Bera. his bargadar delivered owner share to him regularly while Rustam, another bargadar has stopped delivery of owner share to him for four to five years. On 27/01/1984 the defendants have threatened the plaintiff possession in the suit properties and accordingly the plaintiff filed the instant suit.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendant No. 1 and 2 have putting a denial of all the material allegations of the plaint contended inter alia that Mati Bibi was ill because of her old age she was suffering from various ailments prior to her death and she used to share the same mess with defendant No. l, who was her husband's elder brother's son. She was issueless and as such the defendant realized owner's share on her behalf from her bargadar and also looked after her properties. The defendant No. l performed all her funeral rites on her death and he inherited 12 annas interest while his sister, defendant No.2 inherited 4 annas interest in the properties including the proerties in suit left by Mati Bibi. They are also in possession of three bighas through bargadars namely Rustam and Panchanan, who cultivated 1 bigha each. They however, personally cultivated 1 bigha out of the suit property.

(3.) According to them, all the seven deeds standing in favour of the plaintiffs are collusive, fraudulent and some were not acted upon, Mati Bibi had no necessity and intention to sale the property involved in the suit at the relevant time and she possessed the suit properties till her death. Lutfar had no means to pay Rs. 14,000/- at the relevant time. He had no right, title and interest in the suit properties and he never possessed the same.