JONAB ALI SARDER Vs. TASER ALI FAKIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order in Letters Patent No. 7 of 1967.

(2.) Plaintiffs' case, in short, was that the suit land i.e. 1/3rd of C.S. plot No. 839, 832, 842, 867 and 869 and half of C.S. No. 797 and whole of other plots appertaining to jama of Rs. 7/- belonged to Ichhamoyee Dashi who sold the same to Abdul Mannan and pro-forma defendant No. 6 by kabala dated 28.2.36 in equal shares. Abdul Mannan sold his entire interest i.e. -/8/- annas share of the jama to the plaintiff by kabala dated 7.9.57. Pro forma defendant No. 6 Jabed Mondal also sold some portion of the share of the jama to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and pro forma defendant No. 6 were threatened dispossession and as such they filed Title Suit No. 205 of 1958. The suit ended in compromise by the said compromise decree. The plaintiff and pro forma defendant No. 6 got 1/3rd share of the suit dag i.e. the suit land. The defendants 1 to 5 who were pro forma defendants Nos. 30 to 34 in that suit got the remaining portion of the suit plot. Thereafter pro forma defendant No. 6 sold his remaining share in the plot to the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the became owner of 16 annas share of the suit land and since then he was in possession of the same asserting his own right. In the recent rent roll plaintiff's name was not correctly recorded and being encouraged by the finding of a case under section 19(1) and 19(2) of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act the defendants threatened the plaintiff with dispossession from the suit land. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants 1 to 5 contended, inter alia, that in terms of solenama filed in Title Suit No. 205 of 1958 plaintiff got 1/3rd share of the suit land of that suit except plot No. 797 in which the plaintiff got half share. The remaining portions of the suit land of that suit in the allotment of the defendants and as such according to the defendants, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief whatsoever in the suit. The trial Court came to the conclusion that on the interpretation of the Solenama Ext. 2 plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd of the suit dag and not of the suit land. In that view of the matter plaintiff's suit was decreed.