JAGNESWAR NATH Vs. JATRA MOHAN SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff claims that he is a poor school teacher. He sued for getting khas possession on declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit property. He claims that he purchased the suit land appertaining to Jote No. 72 of Mouja Doulbari, P. S. Sabroom from Jibananda Ghosh, the owner of the suit property by a registered sale dated 10 -4 -1962 and continued to possess the same. On the eastern and western sides of the suit land there are Government khas till as. The predecessor -in -title of the plaintiff possessed some tilla slopes and included them within Jote No. 72 and possessed the same for more than 12 years. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased Jote No. 72 land and also the tilla slope lands and continued his act of possession. He claimed that the land measured 2 Kanis and 7 gandas in Jote No. 72. During the absence of the plaintiff the Defendant ploughed over his land on 21 -4 -1962 A. D. (8 -1 -1369 B. S.) and dispossessed him from the land. In due course the land appertaining to Jote No. 72 was measured and found to be 11 gandas and 1 kara of land. The Plaint was amended accordingly. As such, the suit land measured 1 kara 11 gandas in Dag No. 2221 appertaining to Jote No. 72. The Defendant contested the suit, took up several grounds and claimed that the suit land did not appertain to Jote No. 72 of the plaintiff. The Defendant, inter alia, stated in the written statement

(2.) THE main issue framed was:

(3.) THAT apart, as submitted by Mr. A. K. S. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent, the defendant himself admitted the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the land covered by Jote No. 72, the question of non -joinder of Jibananda's mother is an argument in desperation. It is undeniable that the defendant in the written statement has clearly admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of Jote No. 72. I have already quoted above the admission of the defendant as to the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the land covered by Jote No. 72. As a result of the foregoing conclusion I am constrained to hold that the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the suit is bad for non -joinder of Jibananda's mother has no substance at all.