SUSHIL KR PRADHAN Vs. SANDIP KR BEJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13. 03. 1995 and 24. 03. 1995 respectively passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Tamluk in Title Appeal No. 41 of 1992 whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 31. 01. 1992 and 06. 02. 1992 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No. 66 of 1989.

(2.) THE short fact leading to the filing of this second appeal is that the plaintiff/appellant filed the Title Suit No. 66 of 1989 against the defendants/respondents for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit lands as described in the schedule of the plaint and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents in respect of the said lands. One Jogendranath Bej and his four brothers were the intermediaries and they possessed the suit lands along with other lands. Jogendranath Bej got the suit lands by way of amicable partition amongst his brothers and upon his death, the suit lands along with other lands devolved upon his wife, Bhagyabati Bej. Bhagyabati Bej was not in a position to pay up the agricultural income tax in respect of the suit lands and other lands and accordingly certificate case no. 64/d/8 and 65/d/8 of 1957/1958 were started against Bhagyabati Bej and the plaintiff purchased the suit lands along with other lands in the certificate case and he obtained possession of the suit lands on 05. 01. 1962. Subsequently Government declared that the suit lands had been vested in the State. As a result, the plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 31 of 1971 challenging the order of vesting. The suit was decreed. The State being aggrieved filed the Title Appeal No. 479 of 1972 and that appeal was dismissed. When the plaintiff took steps to construct a house over the suit lands the defendants/respondents claimed to have purchased the suit lands from the heirs of one Panchuram Das, namely Bijoy, Chitta @ Khadu and Sudhir and they raised resistance against construction of any house by the plaintiff. On enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the name of Panchuram Das was wrongly recorded in the C. S. record of rights having "chakran" right over the suit lands. The said Panchuram Das had no tenancy right over the suit lands. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 66 of 1989.

(3.) THE defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 of that suit contested the said title suit contending, inter alia, that the suit lands especially the plot no. 904 measuring 35 decimals belonged to Panchuram Das and after his death his three sons namely Bijoy, Khadu and Sudhir inherited the same and their names were duly recorded in the R. S. record of rights in respect of 33 decimals of land in plot no. 904 and two decimals of land in suit plot no. 904/992 under Khatian No. 164 and subsequently Sudhir and Khadu sold their shares in those plots to their brother Bijoy in 1960. Thus, Bijoy became the exclusive owner in respect of the entire 35 decimals of land in the suit lands. Subsequently, Bijoy sold half of the suit lands to one Kiran Sashi Bej on 03. 04. 1962 and the remaining half to the defendant No. 1, Sandip Kumar Bej, on 06. 04. 1962 and he delivered possession thereof in their favour. Then Kiran Sashi Bej raised a pucca house on her purchased portion of the suit lands and began to live thereon. She and the defendant no. 1 began to possess the remaining portion of the suit lands by cultivation. After her death, her husband being the owner of the suit lands, gifted the said half share to Prabir Kumar Bej, defendant no. 2, on 14. 02. 1970. Thus, the defendants became the absolute owners of the suit lands and they possessed the same all along. Thereafter they allowed one Moymun Bibi to possess two decimals of land as a licensee which was recorded in plot no. 904/992 in her name. Thus neither Jogendranath Bej nor his wife Bhagyabati Bej had any right, title and interest over the suit lands and the said auction sale subsequent title suit and the title appeal all were conclusive and not binding upon the defendants. So they prayed for dismissal of the suit.