- (1.)This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of reversal dismissing the suit.
(2.)The suit was instituted on the following allegations: the plaintiffs had been the owners in possession of the suit lands on partition with their company-sharers and the said lands measuring 8.86 acres are situate in mouja Tagra Police Station, Tarakeswar, District Hooghly. The predecessor of the respondent Nabani Mohun Hazra started proceeding in the Court to the Magistrate at Serampore on June 20, 1950 under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he claimed tenancy right in suit lands since 1350 B.S. at a jama of Rs.50/- and also possession on that basis. In the said proceeding, the plaintiffs denied the allegations as untrue and fraudulent. The learned Magistrate on trial on evidence before him under section 145 found possession of the suit lands in favour of the defendant and passed appropriate orders on October 17, 1951 holding that the defendant was in possession of the suit lands on the basis of his settlement. The plaintiffs contended that the findings of the learned Magistrate were wrong and unwarranted by evidence. Accordingly the plaintiffs instituted the suit for a declaration of their title to the suit lands on the findings that the defendant never had any tenancy right therein and for appropriate orders restoring possession thereof to them after setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate.
(3.)The suit was contested by the defendant who filed a written statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff's interest had vested in the State and they had no subsisting title to the suit lands and further that the suit was not properly valued, the valuation thereof being about Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff's possession in the suit lands were denied and it was alleged that the defendant had been possession the suit lands as tenant under the plaintiffs. Further, the defendant had acquired tenancy right by continuous possession for over twelve years and the plaintiffs were not entitled to decree for khas possession. It was further contended that the suit was barred by limitation.