CHAPALA BALA ADHIKARY Vs. MONORANJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chapala Bala Adhikary who originally obtained the present Rule had instituted a suit against opposite party No. 1, Monoranjan Das, inter alia, for declaration of title, for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction in respect of 1-20 acres of land in plot No. 388 of R.S. Khatian No. 2271 in mouza Thuba. Her case, inter alia, was that one Harendra Nath Das who was a bargadar under her had executed a registered estafanama in her favour on February 23, 1959. Thereafter, she had been cultivating the land in question with the help of hired labourers who used to execute krishimajuri agreement each year in lieu of their remuneration. A portion of the suit land was described as a bamboo grove previously, but the said grove was no longer in existence and the said portion was lying fallow. The Defendant opposite party had approached her for granting settlement of the same but she did not agree. The opposite party, thereafter, was trying to disposses her from the suit land.

(2.) The learned Munsif, Second Court, Basirhat, granted an ad interim injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiff and issued a show-cause notice upon the Defendant. The Defendant had entered into appearance and had filed a written statement in the suit, inter alia, claiming that he was a bargadar of the suit land. He had prayed before the trial Court that the question whether he was a bargadar be referred under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to the Bhagchas Officer concerned. The Plaintiff had opposed the said prayer. The learned Munsif by his order dated September 21, 1974, referred to the authority under Section 18(1), the question whether the Defendant Motilal Das was a bargadar in respect of the suit land in question under the Plaintiff Chapala Bala Adhikary. The learned Munsif stayed the further proceedings in the suit till the receipt of the decision of the authority under Section 18(1) on the said question.

(3.) On April 25, 1975, Chapala Bala Adhikary obtained the present Rule. The operation of the above order of the learned Munsif was stayed till the disposed of the Rule, but the opposite party submitted before me that the Bhagchas Officer had already passed his order determining the question referred to him by the learned Munsif in favour of the Defendant. The correctness of the said decision of the Bhagchas Officer is not the subject-matter of challenge in the present Rule. The only question is whether the learned Munsif had acted within his jurisdiction by making the above reference under Section 21(3) for decision of the question whether the Defendant was a bargadar or not.