LAWS(CAL)-1986-5-27

BALAI CHANDRA Vs. RADHARANI DE

Decided On May 22, 1986
BALAI CHANDRA Appellant
V/S
RADHARANI DE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners who are defendants in the Title Suit No. 223 of 1976 pending in the Court of Munsif, 2nd Court at Burdwan against an order No. 16 dated 11-10-1982 of the Ld. Munsif accepting the report of the Local Investigation Commissioner and overruling the objection submitted by the present petitioners against the said report.

(2.) The facts are briefly as follows :-

(3.) One Sri Harekrishna Dey now deceased filed a Title Suit No. 223 of 1976 in the Court of the 2nd Munsif at Burdwan against the petitioners and others for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the petitioners claiming title and possession in the suit property and alleging that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 are the owners of C.S. Plot No. 1371 exercising the title and possession therein but in R.S. records of rights 27 Cent of land in plot No. 1371 has been wrongly recorded in Plot No. 1370 under Khatian No. 399 of Mouza Bamchandai or in the name of the predecessors of the defendants. It is alleged that the said land is the part and parcel of the plaintiffs plot No. 1371 and the defendants are claiming adverse title therein. The present petitioners as defendants filed written statement contending that the plaintiff never had or has any possession on the suit land at any time, that the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation and the Plot No. 1370 has been recorded in the C.S. record in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners but through mistake the area was wrongly recorded as 14 cent in place of 39 cent and the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had all along been in possession of the C. S. Plot No. 1370 and their properties were partitioned and during the R. S. record the two portions were recorded in two plots in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and the petitioners have acquired title by adverse possession also.