MANORANJAN NASKAR Vs. BHARATI HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 1995, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Diamond Harbour, in Title Appeal No.19 of 1994 thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif of the 1st Court at Diamond Harbour dated 27th August, 1993 in Title Suit No.127 of 1991. The appeal is within a very short compass, that is to say, whether the learned first Appellate Court below was right in reversing the judgment of the trial Court and whether the trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the evidence available on record.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The suit property is 34 decimals of land pertaining to two plots, namely, plot no.329 and 330. The short plaint case is that father of the plaintiff and the defendant was the admitted owner of the 34 decimals of land pertaining to the suit plots and from the said 34 decimals of land, the plaintiff's father executed a deed of settlement and/or gift by which 'ka' scheduled property, as mentioned in the deed, was given to the plaintiff and the defendant was given 'kha' scheduled property. It is also the admitted case that both the plaintiff and the defendant have claimed their title by virtue of the said deed which has been admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit 'A'.

(3.) The plaintiff has made out a further case that the deed of gift dated 29.06.1988, executed by his father and by such deed he gifted the watering portion of the tank measuring 321/2 decimals comprised in plot nos.329 and 330 and the remaining portion of the said two plots measuring 11/2 decimals which are comprised in South-West portion of the bank of the two tanks to the defendant by the selfsame deed. The plaintiff's specific case is that he stayed at some other place for a long time and the defendant, at the material time, by taking advantage of his absence, in collusion with the deed writer, had overwritten the figures mentioned in the deed so as to make 11/2 decimals into 41/2 decimals. the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that his father intended to make a gift of 11/2 decimals of land in favour of his sister, the original defendant herein and rest of the land in those two suit plots were intended to be gifted in favour of the brother, that is, the plaintiff but the defendant, who had the custody of the original deed, after registration, manipulated in such a way so as to make the said 11/2 decimals to 41/2 decimals. Therefore, the plaintiff made a prayer for a decree for declaration that he has right, title and interest in respect of 321/2 decimals of land in the suit plots and the defendant has no manner of right to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property.