SARAT CHANDRA RAKHIT Vs. SARALA BALA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant 1. The suit brought by the plaintiffs was one for recovery of possession of a certain plot of land on establishment of their title and also for correction of an entry in the record-of-rights. The plaintiffs case was that this plot of land was plot No. 2732 of the zemindari's chitta prepared in 1234 B.E. It was at one time chakran land. The "chakran" was resumed, and thereafter the land was settled with Bowson Mamud Haldar, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 1 to 8 in the suit. One Fazal Bhangi took settlement of the disputed land from the heirs of Rowson Mamud Haldar and, in execution of a money- decree obtained against him and the sale thereunder, the land was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs. The defendant is the gantidar of Beel Pabla and it was said in the suit that he dispossessed the plaintiffs and got himself wrongly recorded in the settlement "khatian" which was prepared in 1918. The plaintiffs brought a suit soon after the final publication of the record of rights and there was a local enquiry made by a pleader commissioner who prepared a map and submitted his report. But the suit was withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The plaintiffs brought this fresh suit in 1921.

(2.) The settlement record states that the land in suit is in Beel Pabla. The chitta of 1234 describes the plot as situated in mouza Lata. It appears that mouza Lata, Mouza Beel Pabla and another mouza are all within Dehi Pabla which goes under one Touzi. The defence was a denial that the disputed land was identical with plot 2732 of the chitta of 1234 and a denial of the tenancy of Eowson Mamud Haldar and the subsequent lease to Fazal Bhangi and of the plaintiff's purchase. The landlord happens in this case to be the Syedpur Trust Estate, the agent of which estate is the Collector of Khulna and he is a party to these proceedings. He also filed a written statement in which he supported the plaintiff's case in part in that he stated that there was a wrong entry in the record-of-rights. He denied any knowledge of the plaintiffs, but he said that Bowson Mamud Haldar's heirs should have been recorded as tenants under Syedpur Trust Estate.

(3.) The suit was tried by the trial Court. A number of witnesses were examined and the pleader commissioner who had made the local investigation in the previous suit which was withdrawn was also examined and he proved the map which he had prepared in the previous suit and also deposed that he hid made the particular report which was before the Court. It appears that in the trial Court the map and the report were admitted without objection. An objection was taken that the evidence which the pleader commissioner had recorded should have also been put in as, without the evidence, the report was of little value. This has been considered by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court and they are of opinion that the absence of that evidence detracts to some extent the value of the map and the report. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had established their case and he thereupon gave the plaintiffs a decree. Defendant 1 appealed and the learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeal affirmed the decision of the trial Court; and defendant 1 has now come up here in second appeal.