SURYA KUMAR MAITY Vs. SUBODH CHANDRA SASMAL
LAWS(CAL)-1983-8-11
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 01,1983

SURYA KUMAR MAITY Appellant
VERSUS
SUBODH CHANDRA SASMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against a decree of affirmance passed by the learned Additional district Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in a suit for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of Plot nos. 19 to 22 of Mouja Santoshpur, P, S, barasat mentioned in 'kha' Schedule to the plaint.
(2.) THE four suit plots measuring 35 acre and Plot No. 18 measuring -39 acre comprised a raiyati holding at a jama of Rs. 8/-recordedin C. S. Khatian No. 187 and it was held by the Sasmals under Rajendra neogi, Tarak Neogi and Tarini Sur whose superior rent receiving interest was recorded in C. S. Khatian No. 184 as a jama of rs. 107- for 2. 20 acre land held under jadumadhab Chatterjee whose interest was recorded in C. S. Khatian No. 169 of Mouja santoshpur. The Sasmals were in possession of the five plots separately by mutual arrangement. Shyama Charan Sasmal who had 8 annas share was in possession of plot No. 18. The other four Sasmals viz. Dhananjoy, Gopal, Nalini and Panchugopal having 2 annas share each was in separate possession of the disputed plot 19 (08 acre), 20 (07 acre), 21 (11 acre) and 22 (. 09 acre) respectively. The aforesaid position is disclosed by the entries in the c. S. records (Ext. 9 series ).
(3.) THE plaintiffs Subodh and Subal are the two sons of Dhananjoy. Their case is that they acquired the interest of Nalini from his three sons by a registered patta dated 9. 11. 1946 (Ext. 2), the interest of Gopal from his son Sadhan by a registered patta dated 12. 9. 1950 (Ext. 2 (a) and the interest of Panchugopal by a kobala dated 10. 2. 1958 (Ext. 1 ). and came to possess the disputed plots 20, 21 and 22 and they inherited the interest of their father dhananjoy in Plot 19. Thus they were in possession of the suit land in the four plots in dispute during all material period. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land before the suit and actually took wrongful possession of the suit land on 19. 8. 61 by cutting jute crops grown by the plaintiff after the suit had been filed on 11. 4. 61.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.