RAGHUNATH DEY ALIAS RAY Vs. MAHAMMAD USMAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGAL representatives of the original defendant No, 1 and the defendant No. 2 are the appellants before this Court against a confirming judgment. The suit was filed by the respondent for declaration of title recovery of possession and for compensation.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff respondent is that the suit land was recorded in the name of Haji Sk. Nasiruddin in 1930 settlement record and while in possession he sold the same to his daughter Haziani Amina Khatun on 14.11.1923. The said Amina Khatun again sold the property to one Saheb Begum under a registered sale deed dated 19.7.1953 and Saheb Begum became the owner in possession of the Suit land. After remaining in possession for about five years the said Saheb Begum sold the property to the father of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 20th January, 1958 and after death of his father the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property which he got by way of partition despite the fact that the same stands recorded in the names of his brothers and s'ister in the Major Settlement. Further the case of the plaintiff is that the hotel which was being run on the suit land was closed down with a concrete wall and a cloth shop was opened to the west side of the said land. The house standing on the suit plot was used as godown. The defendants appellants have a hotel in front of the suit house and they attempted to utilise the suit house for sale of country, liquor and run a hotel. When the plaintiff refused, they forcibly entered into the suit house on 1.2.1992 violating an order of injunction passed by a competent court during pendency of the suit. Accordingly, as it appears the plaint was also amended praying for compensation.

(3.) AFTER death of the original defendant No. 1 his legal heirs who were substituted in his place have filed a separate written statement taking a different plea. It is the case of the legal heirs that the suit property had been recorded in the name of Sk. Nasiruddin in the current settlement record as Stitiban tenant and he had put in possession one Nira Ghosh mother of D 1 (ka) over the suit land on the basis of a gift (Heba Nama) and the said Nira Ghosh remained in possession of the suit house and paid rent to the Ex Zamindar. After death of Nira Ghosh defendant No. 1 (Kha) as the only daughter inherited the property and remained in possession. It was further pleaded by the legal heirs that the plaintiff obtained an erroneous R.O.R. in the Major Settlement in his name. Plea of title by way of adverse possession was also raised by the legal heirs.