NEMAI PRAMANIK Vs. BEDAL CHANDRA MISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arose out of challenge of judgment and decree dated 21st January, 1994 passed in Title Appeal No.407 of 1992 by learned Assistant Judge at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas, affirming the judgment and decree dated 25th July, 1992 passed in Title Suit No.498 of 1977 by learned 1st Court of Munsif at Diamond Harbour, District South 24-Parganas. This appeal was preferred by defendant No.1 of the suit as appellant. By the order dated 11th April, 1994 while admitting the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that the appeal would be heard on the ground Nos. I, III, IV, X, XIV and the added grounds i.e. ground No.XX. The aforesaid grounds read to this effect: -

(2.) Title Suit No. 498 of 1977 was filed praying (a) declaration of title of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the predecessor in interest of plaintiff No.3 in Schedule 'Ka' and 'Kha' properties as reversioner of Late Muchiram Mistri and further declaration that defendants has no title and possession over the property; (b) mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance over the possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs during pendency of the suit and/or in future; (c) in the event prayer (a) is not allowed by the Court, then a declaration that in the suit land the plaintiffs have acquired title by purchase of the suit land and a mandatory injunction to that effect restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:

(3.) While adjudicating the suit, the trial Court framed the main point to this effect that the dispute relates to the issue as to whether the suit land belong to Muchiram or Narayani as a personally owned property with absolute interest. It was the plaintiffs case that after death of Narayani they inherited the properties left by Muchiram in respect of 'ka' schedule property but subsequently, they purchased the 'ka' schedule property from Surobala, daughter of Muchiram. As per 'kha' schedule property, plaintiff inherited the property as the successor in interest of Nabin as well as reversioner of Muchiram. To satisfy the claim as reversioners it was the case of the plaintiffs that the Muchiram died on 1327 B. S. i.e. long before commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Narayani, widow of Muchiram, accordingly, acquired only the interest of widowed estate over the suit land and after death of Narayani the inheritance over the properties of Muchiram devolved upon the heirs of Muchiram's aguates and by virtue of old Hindu Law of inheritance in vogue prior to 1956, the plaintiffs, the reversioners of Muchiram, inherited the properties of Muchiram. Defendant on the other hand submitted a defence case that in the cadastral settlement record of rights, the suit plot has been mentioned in the name of Narayani as absolute owner and in the revisional settlement record of rights, the name of Surobala as legal heir of Narayani was recorded along with Lakshmibala in equal share being the two daughters of Narayani and accordingly the claim of the plaintiff as reversioners of Muchiram had no basis. It was the further defence case that the plaintiffs admitted Surobala as the legal heir who inherited the property from Narayani and thereby purchased the property from Surobala. It was the further defence case that Surobala by deed of gift transferred the property measuring 27 satak of land of the suit plot in favour of defendant No. 1. Learned Court below considered the documentary evidence as exhibited and scanned the oral evidence of the parties including their respective conduct and ultimately held so far as the issue of title of the suit properties to this effect: