TARAK CHANDRA DHOLEY Vs. SATYANARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Rule as plaintiff has instituted a suit in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Serampore against the opposite parties, inter alia, for a declaration of his tenancy rights and/or title to the lands described in Schedule 'Ka' and 'Kha' of the plaint and for further declaration that the Record of Rights in so far as the same recorded the name of the defendant-opposite party No.1 as a tenant under the State was wrong and that the rental recorded as Rs.155/- instead of Rs.110/- per year in respect of the Schedule lands was wrong and that the R.S. Khatian No.3706 of 'Kha' Schedule so far as it recorded Kundan Orao as a tenant under Kirti Chandra Mukhopadhyay and others instead of under the plaintiff was wrong and that the defendant No.1 was just a caretaker and had no right, title and interest in the 'Kha' Schedule properties and that there had been revocation of the said entrustment. The petitioner has also prayed for an order of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering with his alleged possession in the 'Ka' and 'Kha' Schedule suit properties.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner has averred that all along he had been a korfa tenant in possession at a rental of Rs.110/- only per year in respect of properties described in Schedule 'Ka' under the then landlords Kirti Chandra Mukhopadhyay and other and his name was so recorded in the C.S. Record of Rights. He claimed that after enforcement of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 he had become a raiyat directly under the State of West Bengal, proforma defendant No.2, in the suit. He had alleged that he had entrusted the defendant-opposite party No.1, Satyanarain Singh, with the management of the said properties and he had allegedly leased out a portion of C.S.Plot No.1722/2295 to one Kundan Orao. According to the plaintiff-petitioner the said Satyanarain Singh by making and manufacturing fraudulent and fictitious, illegal, invalid and inoperative papers and records in collusion with each other fraudulently got the lands in R.S. Khatian No. 3588 (new) recorded in his name and by opening of a three cottahs plot of R.S.Plot No.1772/5678 in the name of Kundan Orao under the plaintiff's landlords Kirti Chandra Mukhpadhyay and others instead of under the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that the said Records of Rights were wrong and without foundation and that the plaintiff and not the defendant No.1 was the tenant thereof under the State at the rent of Rs.110/- and not Rs.155/-.

(3.) The defendant No.1 has been contesting the said suit. He has, inter alia, disputed that the plaintiff was a tenant of the disputed land or that the Records of Rights in question were erroneous.