MOHAMMAD ALI SK Vs. KALMA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellants and also Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The respondents herein as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 34 of 1982 in the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction and for direction for correction of revenue records to delete the names of the defendant- appellants from the Khatians issued in their favour in respect of the disputed land. The plaintiff-respondents' case is that their father Kitab Sarkar and one Amiruddin Sk, were tenants under the Jamindar, namely, Nripendra Narayan Choudhury. Their names were recorded in respect of 107 Bighas 2 Kathas and 15 Dhurs. The plaintiffs inherited the lands from their father Kitab Sarkar @ Kitab Sk. The co- sharer Amiruddin was not interested in the land and, as such, the entire land in question was under occupation of the plaintiffs. During survey operation, the land was under water and the plaintiffs possessed the same after its reappearance. The plaintiff-respondents also inducted some persons as tenants into the said land. The defendants who were never in possession of the land surreptitiously got their names recorded in collusion with the revenue staffs. An area of 33 Bighas and odd land in Khatian No. 77 (Dag No. 169) was wrongly recorded in the name of defendant No. 2. Another plot of land measuring 38 Bighas and add appertaining to Khatian No. 154 was recorded in the name of the defendants No. 3,4,5 and 6 and predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 7(a), 7(b) and 8. Similarly, name of defendant No. 9 was recorded in respect of 20 Bighas of Khatian No. 117 and in the like manner the names of defendants No. 10(a) to 10(i) were recorded in respect of 15 Bighas and odd land of Khatian No. 72. The plaintiff-respondents case is that the aforesaid defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit land and they never occupied the same.

(3.) The appellant-defendants No. 2 to 10 contested the suit. They denied the claim of the plaintiff-respondents and asserted that they got settlement of the land from Gauripur Raj Estate. They also claimed that they were in possession of the said lands by virtue of settlement order issued in their names.