KISSENDEYI DEBI Vs. SAROSHI BALA DASL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Respondent Saroshibala Dasi for declaration of her title to and recovery of khas possession of some lands described in the schedule of the plaint. Though the lands have been described as appertaining to a mokarari jama of Rs. 60-15 it was admitted during trial that the jama, was an occupancy raiyati holding held by one Satish Chandra Pradhan and some other Prodhans under two sets of landlords, one set being Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Choudhury and others and the other set being represented only by one Bhola Nath Dutt and each set having 8 annas share in the superior right. The Plaintiff claimed title to the above mentioned holding on the basis of two auction purchases consequent on the execution of two mortgage decrees obtained by her against the Pradhan tenants. Her case was that she was in possession of the lands after her auction purchases and she was dispossessed by the Defendants of the trial court in Chaitra, 1351 B.S.

(2.) The suit was contested only by Defendant No. 2, Kissendeyi Debi who is Appellant in this appeal. The remaining Defendants disclaimed any interest in the disputed property. The contesting Defendant denied the title of the Plaintiff and set up a title of her own contending that the recorded tenant in the sherista of the superior landlord was Panchanan Chatterjee and the contesting Defendant had purchased the holding from the Official Receiver of the High Court who had been empowered by the High Court to sell the property for satisfaction of a decree passed against Panchanan and another person. This defence was negatived by the courts below and so Defendant No. 2 of the trial court has preferred this Second Appeal.

(3.) Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted three contentions before me. He contended in the first place that upon the documents filed by the Plaintiff Respondent her auction purchased title to the disputed holding had not been made out and secondly, her title, even if established, cannot take precedence over the title of the Appellant. It was contended in the third place that, in any event, the suit should have been dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. I shall take up all these contentions one after another.