ANWAR HOSSAIN SHEIKH Vs. SANTI KUMAR MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 2nd June, 1977 passed by the District Judge, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No. 43/73 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30th January, 1973 passed by the Munsif 1st Court at Berhampur in Title Suit No. 153/71 whereunder the plaintiffs suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession was decreed. The brief scenario of the case leading to this appeal is stated herebelow

(2.) . The respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed the suit in T.S. 153/71 against the appellants who were the contesting defendants along with other proforma defendants for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties, confirmation of possession or in the alternative if the Court finds that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit properties, then to recover possession from the defendants after evicting them therefrom.

(3.) It is case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties had originally belonged to one Durga Charan Mondal. During his life time he had gifted away the suit land to his daughter's son Rasik. Basuki, the mother of Rasik was the only daughter of Durga Charan. Durga Charan died leaving behind his only surviving heiress namely his daughter Basuki. Basuki died shortly after the death of her father. Thus, Rasik became the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of the deed of gift and also by inheritance through his mother. After having acquired the suit land from Durga Charan, Rasik's name also was duly recorded in the C.S. and R. S. record of rights. He gifted the suit land to his wife Bhagabati. Both, Rasik and Bhagabati executed a deed of gift of the suit land in favour of the defendants 14 to 17 on 7-4-1956 who had accepted the same and continued to be in possession over the suit land. Those defendants again sold the suit (land) to the plaintiff under different kobalas and ever since the purchase the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the defendants 1 and 2 in collusion with Kulda got a sale deed executed in their names and on the basis of that document with the help and assistance of the defendants 3 to 7 had threatened to disturb the plaintiff's possession/