RAKHAL CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. LAXMI GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the appellant plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff', under Section 100 C.P.C. arises from the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2002 and 4.12.2002 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in T.A. No. 8 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 31.1.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, in Title Suit No. 5 of 2000. Heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents.

(2.) The subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiff is a plot of land measuring 0.51 acres, i.e., survey plot being C.S. plot No. 1631 and 1632 corresponding to RS plot No. 3197 and 3196 recorded in C.S. Khatian No. 591, corresponding to RS Khatian No. 1878 of mouja Kakraban described in the schedule of the plaint, hereinafter referred to as the suit land. The suit land along with some other lands originally belonged to one Siraj Mia Sardar and some other persons who have admittedly exchanged their properties in India with some citizens of erstwhile Pakistan, now Bangladesh including the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-defendants, hereinafter referred to as defendants, with their respective properties in Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in the year 1963. The plaintiff was admittedly appointed as attorney of Siraj Mia and others, hereinafter referred to as grantee of power of attorney, who executed a deed of exchange in terms of the power of attorney (Ext. A) executed on 23.10.1963 which was marked as Ext.-4 in the suit in his own name instead of executing the exchange deed either in favour of his father or in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants.

(3.) Since then, he has been occupying the suit land, but the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Smt. Subhashini Ghosh managed to record the suit land in her favour in the record of rights both in cadastral survey and in the revisional survey in collusion with the survey and settlement staff. The plaintiff grantor/agent in his plaint also stated that he was never physically disturbed to possess the suit land and on 10.3.2000, the defendants, the legal heirs of deceased Subhashini Ghosh, tried to enter into the suit land with the help of other persons which was resisted by the plaintiff. As the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, he filed the suit in question for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and also to create perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the suit land in any manner to the 3rd party.