SUKDEB GIRI Vs. GITARANI MISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Second Appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 6th December, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Title Appeal No. 27 of 2009 affirming the judgement and decree dated 5th June, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No. 55 of 2006. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the subject property and permanent injunction restraining the defendant / appellant from interfering with his possession in respect thereof. Admittedly the entire plot no. 2090 was owned and possessed by Kunja Behari Das Bhattacharya, who subsequently executed and registered a deed of gift in favour of his wife and sons on 5th November, 1970. By virtue of the same one of his sons, namely Lakshmi Kanta Das Bhattacharya acquired an exclusive right, title and interest in respect of the said plot and asserted such right by mutating his name in the Record of Rights and upon payment of the statutory dues.

(2.) Being the exclusive owner the said Lakshmi Kanta Das Bhattacharya sold 26 decimal of land being northern portion of the said plot no. 2090 in favour of the plaintiff by a deed dated 10th December, 1970. The remaining portion, i.e. 25 decimal of land comprised in the said plot was thereafter sold to Dhananjoy Giri and Janmenjoy Giri on the strength of a sale deed dated 14th June, 1971 and the L.R. Record of Rights was also prepared accordingly.

(3.) Subsequently the State of West Bengal acquired 43 decimal of land out of 51 decimal in plot no. 2090 and the dispute arose subsequently when the defendants tried to encroach upon the left out portion of the said plot of land by removing the fence. Such being the cause of action pleaded in the plaint the suit was filed by the plaintiff asserting his right, title and interest in respect of the left out portion, i.e. 8 decimal of land to the exclusion of the defendants and the permanent injunction against them so that the possession may not be interfered with.