SAYADA BIBI Vs. RAFAT ARA @ RAJAT ARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dtd. 11/9/2002 passed by learned judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Title Appeal no. 3 of 1997, present second appeal has been preferred. By the judgment impugned learned court below has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 30/5/1996 in Title Suit no. 22 of 1978.

(2.) Plaintiff/respondent herein before the trial court filed aforesaid Title Suit being no. 22 of 1978 contending that, one Sk. Khali Choudhury was a thika tenant in respect of premises no. 83E/1E Belgachia Road, under erstwhile Zamindar Sachindra Nath Dey. Said premises no. 83E/1E, which are the suit property comprised of land measuring more or less 4 cotttahs 1 chittak together with structure of 21 rooms. Said Khalil Choudhury had also earnings as owner of vehicle and from tenanted structure at premises no. 83E Belgachia Road and he used to pay rent to the Zamindar during his lifetime. After the death of Khalil the original defendant no. 1 took charge of his proprieties and business. The present plaintiffs being sons and widow became the owner of the structure on the suit property and they are in occupation of eight rooms in the suit property and on the contrary defendant no. 1 is in occupation of two rooms. Subsequently the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant no. l has mutated his name in respect of the suit property, taking advantage of the management of the suit property. Plaintiff's specific case is that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff never surrendered his tenancy right in favour of Zamindar and the defendant no. 1 is occupying two rooms in the suit property merely as licensee. The plaintiffs further contended that they came to know about the mischievous act of the defendant no. 1, when he denied to give accounts of rents collected by him from other tenants from the property and tried to transfer the same to some third parties.

(3.) The original defendant no. 1 Sk. Abdus Sattar filed written statement, wherein he denied entire allegation made in the plaint. Substituted defendants' specific case is that by two registered deed of sale dtd. 27/8/1957 and 18/9/1966, their predecessor Sk. Sattar purchased entire suit property form its erstwhile owner and landlord. Subsequently the premises no. of the suit property has been changed to premises no. 83E/1E Belgachia road and since the date of purchase the defendants are possessing the suit property peacefully and without disturbance form any corner and as such plaintiffs have no right title or interest over the suit property. During pendency of the suit original defendant no. 1 Sk Abdul Sattar died and his legal heirs were substituted. Amongst the substituted defendants, defendant no. 1(b) and 1(c) filed separate written statement, wherein they have reiterated the case of original defendant as regards ownership over the property and that the defendant no. 1 who was in possession of the suit property till his death have also acquired title in the suit property by way of adverse possession. Their further case is that the deceased defendant no. 1 Sk. Sattar executed a will in favour of defendant no. 1(b) and 1(c) and one Mumtaj Ali by virtue of which he bequeathed entire suit property to them.