RANJIT KUMAR SAMANTA Vs. SUDHANSHU SEKHAR DAS BAIRARIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the unsuccessful defendants arises out of a decree of affirmance passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court-, Howrah, in a suit for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and recovery of arrear rents.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff-respondents was that the schedule 'ka' property measuring. 2 6 decimals' belonged to Ranjit (defendant 1 ka) and Ratan (defendant 1 kha) by virtue of deed of gift dated 27. 6. 52 executed in their favour by their paternal grand-father Kalipada Samanta, as father and natural guardian of Ranjit and Ratan,. who were minors, sold the property to him (the plaintiff) by a registered sale deed and delivered possession thereof to him. The sale, according to him was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors, on 30. 5. 64 Ranjit who had atained majority by that time, executed a deed ratifying the sale. Ratan also joined the deed being represented by his lather and natural guardian kanai, After his purchase. the plaintiff made a pan boroj (betel plantation) on. 03 decimals ox land described in schedule kha to the plaint. On the remaining. 18 decimals of land described in schedule 'ga' to the plaint, there is a kliari ban and a doba and on the rest of the lands paddy is grown by the plaintiff.

(3.) DUE to certain difficulties in maintaining the pan boroj the plaintiff leased out the same to Kanai for a period of two years commencing from 1st ftaisakh, 1374 B. S. at a rented of Rs. 40/- per annum and in token of the lease a Kabuliat was executed by Kanai. Even after the expiry of the period of the lease, Kanai continued to hold over by payment of rent for the year 1376 B. S. but thereafter he stopped payment, repeated demands for rent produced no result; on the contrary, kanai and his sons Ranjit and Jatan there atened the plaintiff to dispossess him from the rest of the property described in schedule 'ga' to the plaint. Under the circum: ances, tie was compelled to bring the action against them for. . . declaration pf his title to the schedule ' ka' property, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the schedule 'ga' properety and from changing the nature of the pan boroj, i. e. , schedule 'kha' property and also for recovery of arreai rents amounting to Rs. 120/-, described in schedule 'ga' to. the plaint.