SREE BISHONATH DAS Vs. SREE BINOY KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.820 of 1997 against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Court No. 2, Jessore in Title Appeal No.239 of 1987 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1987 passed by the Monirampur Upazila Munsif Adalat, Monirampur, Jessore in Title Suit No.228 of 1984.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the respondents-opposite party respondent Nos.1-3 as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.228 of 1984 in the Court of the Monirampur Upazila Munsif Adalat, Monirampur, Jessore impleading the predecessor of the petitioners and other respondents as defendants for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and khas possession in respect of the suit property.

(3.) The plaintiffs in the aforesaid Title Suit No.228 of 1984 stated in the pliant that the suit land measuring 35 decimals of land in plot Nos.170, 176 and 178 of mouza bali-adanga of Monirampur Police Station, District-Jessore belonged to C.S. recorded tenant Arjun Muchi and others and one Dakhu Rani was his upper landlord and subsequently one Kashinath purchased her rent receiving interest and took the land as his khas property and thereby S.A. record has been prepared in his name. The plaintiffs further stated that practically Kashinath did not get possession but Arjun Muchi possessed the suit land and resided therein by creating house till his death and his only son the plaintiff Panchu Gopal Das has been possessing the same. Due to preparation of S.A. record in the name of Kashinath to avoid complexity of law, the plaintiff Panchu Gopal on 22.02.1979 obtained a registered kabala deed from Kashinath and the plaintiff had lawful title over the suit land. The plaintiff further stated that on 15.02.1982 the ADC (Revenue), Jessore passed an illegal order regarding correction of S.A. record and on the basis of that order defendant No.1 threatened the plaintiff with dispossession and accordingly the plaintiff filed the present suit.