KESHAB CHANDRA MUKHERJEE Vs. NAYANTARA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgement and Decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Alipore, in Title Appeal No.137 of 1989 affirming the Judgement and Decree dated 7th June, 1989 and 27th July, 1989 respectively passed by the Assistant District Judge, Alipore in Title Suit No.94 of 1983 whereby and whereunder the plaintiff/appellant's suit for declaration of Title and confirmation of possession was dismissed. The facts of the case, bereft of all unnecessary details, are stated as follows:

(2.) That the plaintiff/appellant took permanent settlement of three Bighas of land being bastu land and tank appertaining to C.S. Dag No.211 under C.S. Khatian No.163 of Mouza Jangra in the District of 24 Parganas, under a registered lease deed dated 2nd April, 1947 from Santosh Bagui and others. After taking the above land being bastu, the plaintiff continued to be in peaceful possession of the same and after having possessed for sometime he divided the above plot in-to ten sub-plots by making different part and parcels of land and leased out those plots to different persons by different lease deeds retaining the balance lands and tank in plot No. 10. The land which was delineated by him previously remained under his Khas possession from which a portion was acquired for laying cut the V.I.P. Road. The defendant No.1 took the settlement of the plot No.10 on and from 30th March, 1948 measuring more or less 8 cottahs comprising the bastu and a very small portion of the tank. The remaining portion of the tank which was not disposed of by the plaintiff/appellant is however, the subject-matter of the present suit described in 'B' Schedule property. The appellant was for sometime away while in service and in husiness from 1954 onwards to Raipur and then to Danda Karanya and finally came to his native place and found that the defendant No.1 in collusion with other defendants created some collusive and fictitious documents to defeat his rights. The plaintiff/appellant has been all along in possession of the tank and in course of time he filled-up same in the said tank. As the defendant No.1 created some fictitious documents in favour of other defendants, therefore, the appellant apprehended that there might be some cloud shrouded over the appellants title Therefore, he filed the present suit for declaration of his title, for permanent injunction and /or in the alternative for confirmation of possession.

(3.) The plaintiff/appellant has further averred, inter alia, that the defendant No.1 taking advantage of his temporary absence somehow managed to get her name recorded in the R.S. record of right although the plaintiff/appellant has been all along in possession of the same, without any slightest disturbance or interference by the original defendant No.1 or other defendants. The defendant Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 had filed their written statement in the trial court, whereby they denied all materials allegation made therein by the plaintiff. The main plea in the written statement of the defendant No.1 is that after taking settlement of the plot No.10 consisting of the entire land and tank as well, she continued to be in possession of the suit property and in course of time, transferred entire property to the other defendants 2, 3, and 4 some time in 1965. After her name was recorded in Revisional Settlement records, the defendant No.1 on the other hand, transferred property to defendant No.5 who again sold the aforementioned land to Sanjit Saha and Chittaranjan Banik. the defendant No.3 similarly, sold a portion of the suit land to defendant Nos. 8 and 9. The defendant No.4 sold it to defendant No.6 who in turn sold the same to defendant Nos. 7 and 9. She further took an inexplicable plea that the plaintiff being aware of their possession right from the date of execution of lease deed in favour of defendant No.1 who have been holding possession of the property adversely to the knowledge of the plaintiff for more than thirty years, therefore, they have otherwise acquired the title by adverse possession. The suit is also otherwise barred by limitation since it has not been filed within the period of limitation. the defendant No.1 had been asserting her right as her own and the State Officials, accordingly, paid her compensation for having acquired a portion of plot No.10.