BAGAL TANTI Vs. RAM RANJAN LAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of affirmance. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of their title in respect of various plots of land in different khatians situate in the district of Burdwan and for confirmation of their possession therein.

(2.) The relevant facts as stated in the plaint are as follows. The plaintiffs' predecessor. Prahlad was an occupancy raiyat in respect of the five plots being the suit lands and the rent in respect of the plots, was share of produce inclusive of cess. After the death of Prahlad his four sons, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3, the father of plaintiff No. 4 and deceased plaintiff No. 2; continued to possess the disputed lands on :payment of rent till 1356 B.S. In 1357 B. S. they grew crops in the disputed lands but the defendants out of enmity tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed Lands. The plaintiffs accordingly 'brought the suit for declaration of their sthitiban rajyati right in respect of the suit lands and also for recovery of possession in case they were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and also for permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants Nos. 1, 2. 3, 5 and 6 only contested the suit by filing a written statement The defence was that Prahlad Laha had no occupancy right in respect of the disputed plots but that he was a mere bargadar in respect of those plots under the two groups of landlords, viz. Mitra Babus and Mukherjee Babus. It was further stated that in Chaitra, 1346 B. S. the heirs of Prahlad Laha and Chandra Gorai in whose names the disputed plots were recorded, surrendered the disputed lands in favour of the landlords and thereafter the landlords took khas possession of the same and sot them cultivated by defendant No. 2 as their bhag chasi and they also similarly let out different defendants. They contended that they were bargadars accordingly in respect of the suit lands at the time of the institution of the suit. The defendants denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit lands. The further defence was that the suit was barred 'by limitation and bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action.