BHAGABAN BAG Vs. DAMA BAG AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the appeals arise out of a suit, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Krushna Bag, father of the appellant, as plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land originally belonged to Basu Bag. After death of Basu, his widow Pakla succeeded to the properties as Basu had no issue. Pakla was in possession of the property. Plaintiff and his father, Khetra Bag, maintained her till her death. On 31.165, Pakla executed an unregistered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff's father in respect of the suit land and delivered possession. His father was in possession of the property. In the year 1975, his father mortgaged a portion of the suit land to one K.K. Majhi by means of a registered deed. The mortgagee remained in possession of the land for seven years. Thereafter he delivered possession of the land to the plaintiff. He filed Mutation Case No.3510/81. The land was mutated in his favour. He used to pay rent. He is in possession of the land and has acquired possessory title. The defendants have no title over the land. They created disturbances in his possession. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant nos.1 to 4 filed a joint written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant nos.1 to 4 was that the suit lands along with other lands originally belonged to Chamaru Bag, Basu Bag, Basudev Bag, Budhu Bag and Bijaru Bag. They were in possession of the land. The names had been recorded in the ROR published in the year 1936. During the life time of the said persons, the lands were partitioned. The suit land along with other lands fell to the share of Chamaru Bag. Chamaru was in possession of the same. During the current settlement, the suit land had been recorded in the name of Chamaru. He used to pay rent. After his death, the defendant nos.1 to 5 succeeded to the properties. They are in possession of the suit land.