RATI KANTA MOSAT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment of affirmance. The plaintiff instituted a suit on the allegation that one Molla Moshuddin was a tenure-holder of the suit lands. He died leaving his father, Abu Taib, his widow and two daughters, defendants 4 and 5. Thereafter, the widow died. Abu Taib got the suit lands and after possessing them for more than 12 years in exclusive title sold the suit lands to the plaintiff by registered kobala dated 28. 3. 36. In the revisional settlement record, the settlement authorities refused to record the lands in the plaintiff's possession and as the Government was trying to disturb plaintiff's possession, the suit was instituted for a declaration of the. plaintiff's title and also for an injunction restraining the State Government from disturbing his possession. It was further stated that an application for revision of the settlement record was made by the plaintiff under section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act but the same was rejected and thereafter the present suit was instituted claiming the aforesaid reliefs upon due service of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the State of West Bengal, the defendant no. 1 who submitted, inter alia, that the vendor of the plaintiff had no title to the properties on the date of sale as they had already vested in the State previously The story of adverse possession for more than 12 years was also disputed. A written statement was also filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 4 and 5, the daughters of Moshuddin wherein it was stated that they inherited the properties and Abu Taib had no interests in the properties.

(3.) THE suit was tried on evidence and both the courts below proceeded on the admitted position that Abu taib's interest in the suit lands was that of a permanent tenure holder. The learned Munsif found on the evidence of the court's witnesses that abu Taib did in fact filed a return in form 'b' and the suit plots were not retained and no return was filed in respect thereof. The learned Munsif, accordingly, concluded that Abu Taib had no intention to retain nor did he ever retain the plots under section 6 (1) (d) of the West Bengal Estates acquisition Act and, as such, the suit lands vested in the State of West Bengal since 1st Baisak, 1362 B. S. In this state of affairs, the plaintiff did not purchase any interest on the basis of his sale deed.