JAGABANDHU NATH Vs. MADHABILATA BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the Defendant No. 1 of the original suit against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagar, Nadia, in an appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the Additional Court of the Munsif at Krishnagar passed in favour of the Respondents-Plaintiffs. The Appellant is Jagabandhu Nath.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiffs Madhabilata Bakshi and others is that the suit land in C.S. plot No. 2148 measuring 1-72 acres was held by one Debu Ghosh as an utbandi tenant under the landlords now represented by the Plaintiffs and the pro forma Defendants. Debu Ghosh abandoned the suit property leaving it to the khas possession of the said landlord. The Plaintiffs and the proforma Defendants were in khas possession of the suit land and got it cultivated by their bargadars and retained the land in their khas possession. During the recent revisional settlement operation the suit land has been recorded in their names. Taking advantage of the absence of the Plaintiffs and the pro forma Defendants, the Defendant No. 1 being a man of desperate character without taking permission of the Plaintiffs and the pro forma Defendants forcibly started possessing the suit land, a part of the previous C.S. plot No. 2148 on and from Baisakh 10, 1359 B.S. This suit land measuring 142 acres has been recorded during the revisional settle-u merit as in possession of the Defendant No. 1 by force. The Plaintiffs in this suit claim that the suit land belongs to them and their co-sharers, the pro forma Defendants and they have prayed for a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the Plaintiffs and the pro forma Defendants by evicting the principal Defendant No. 1 therefrom. It has been stated in the plaint that as the co sharers other than the Plaintiffs are living in different places, they have been impleaded as pro forma Defendants who may be transferred as co-Plaintiffs if desired. Besides recovery of possession of the suit land with declaration of title in favour of the Plaintiffs and pro forma Defendants, the Plaintiffs have claimed for damages for the unlawful possession, costs of the suit and other reliefs as would be thought proper.

(3.) The Defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement to oppose the Plaintiffs' case. His case is that after the suit land came to be possessed by some of the Plaintiffs and the predecessors of some of the Plaintiffs after Debu's abandonment the said landlords gave settlement of the suit land to Torab Mondal and Goljan Mondal at a rental of Rs. 3-7-6 per year and the said Torab and Goljan went on possessing as joint tenants till communal disturbances in the country. In 1356 B.S. they exchanged orally the suit land with Sadhucharan's land in East Pakistan and delivered possession of the suit land to Sadhucharan. They also executed on Sept. 22, 1952, a power-of-attorney in favour of Sadhucharan who transferred the suit land to the Defendant No. 1 on March 30, 1953 and since then the Defendant No. 1 had been in possession of the land by paying rents to the Plaintiffs till the date of vesting. According to the Defendant, the statement as to his possession described in R.S. khatian as forcible is erroneous.