GOUR GOPAL DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned subordinate Judge, Third Court, midnapore in Title Appeal No. 196 of 1971 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif, Third Court, Tamluk in T. S. No. 23 of 1970.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs/appellants, in short, is that the suit properties along with other properties belonged to Sristidhar Kar. While in possession of the suit properties, he died leaving three daughters Kamini, Khiroda and niroda, each inheriting equal share in the property left by Sristidhar. In the D. S. R. O. R. the properties under Khatian No. 13 and 14 where recorded in the names of three daughters of Sristidhar, but, the properties under khatian No. 33 were wrongly recorded in the name of Kiranbala who was not at all interested in the suit property. Khiroda died in 1934 leaving the daughter Subhasini. Kamini died leaving daughter Kironbala, Niroda died leaving two sons Bhudeb Dutta and Mukunda Dutta. Thus the properties left by Sristidhar were inherited by Mukunda Dutta i. e. the plaintiffs' father and Bhudeb Dutta each having equal share therein. The plaintiffs' father died before the passing of the Hindu Succession Act and the plaintiffs inherited the properties. Bhudeb Dutta died unmarried on 20. 3. 1969. The plaintiffs thus inherited the properties left by Bhudeb Dutta. The plaintiffs and Bhudeb Dutta retained the suit properties along with other properties by submitting 'b' Form. Bhudeb Dutta was not conversant with the matters relating to the properties and the plaintiffs were minors at that time. Because of the inadvertence of the clerk, the suit property was not mentioned in the 'b' Form and the same has been recorded as 'vested'. Subsequently, on 20. 8. 1969 the plaintiffs submitted revised 'b' form and on 21. 8. 1969 the settlement 'b' Camp received the same. The plaintiffs are not the big riyats. The properties were recorded in intermediary rights. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit properties. Because of the wrong recording in the R. S. R. O. R. the J. L. R. O. served notice upon the plaintiffs for taking necessary action treating the suit properties as vested to the State. The defendant State of West Bengal did not take possession under Section 10 (2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs instituted the suit before the learned Trial court for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendant/respondent State of West Bengal filed written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs never filed any objection for correction of the R. S. R. O. R. at any stage of the R. S. operation. Bhudeb dutta did not retain the suit land and the same vested to the State. The r. S. R. O. R. was correctly prepared showing the suit land as 'vested'.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court has decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands and the defendant State has not taken possession of the same within 60 days of the service of notice under section 10 (2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. It has further been held by the learned Trial Court that the plaintiffs were within their rights to retain the suit property by filing revised 'b' Form.