SHYAM SUNDAR DAS Vs. GUNADHAR PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Third court at Midnapore in title Appeal No. 187 of 1975 reversing the judgement and decree passed by the learned Munsif. second court, Contai, in title suit no. 11 of 1972.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the appellant In the instant appeal and the said title suit no. 11 of 1972 was institued by the plaintiff appellant for eviction of the defendant respondent from the premises in suit on the ground that the said defendant was a trespasser. The case of the plaintiff was, inter alia that the suit premises was acquired by the plaintiff partly by purchase and partly by deed of settlement made by the farther of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contended that initially one Laxmi Kanta Das was a tenant in respect of the suit premises and he was evicted in due course of law. After that the defendant respondent illegally a'espassed m tae suit premises ana haa ouiumed rent receipts coiiusiveiy irom the lather ol tne piainun. me piamtiii: contenaea that he iiaa a step-mother and under the muuence oi me step motner, lather haa been acting prejudicially against the interest 01 tne plaintiff and the rent receipt and other documents were being manuiactured by the fainer of the plaintiff to plaintiff's loss and prejudice. The aforesaid contention of the plaintiff was however denied by the defendant in his written statement and it was contended inter aha that the father was the real owner of the property and as a matter of fact that he had been dealing with the said property independently as a owner thereof and even in respect of other portion of the house in question the father had been acting as the owner and had been taking all steps for enhancement of rent in respect of the said portions which are under the possession of the local Block Development Officer. The defendant denied that there was any collusion between the father and the defendant and the defendant also pleaded alternatively that even if the mother was the natural guardian of the plaintiff, who was minor at the time of induction of the tenancy in favour of the defendant, such tenancy was made also at the instance of the mother.

(3.) THE learned Muhsif decreed the said suit inter alia on the finding that the plaintiff had title to the property and the defendant failed to establish that he was inducted as a tenant by the father of the plaintiff.