- (1.) This court has heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows: The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 48/2003 which was placed for hearing before the Court of the Learned Second Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranaghat, Nadia. The case of the plaintiff/respondent was that one Bela Rani Biswas was the owner of a certain plot No. 408 as mentioned in the plaint which comprised of an area of 75 decimals of land. The said Bela Rani Biswas sold 10 decimals of land from the northern portion of the said plot No. 408 to one Krishna Kanta Patitunda sometime in the year 1972 for valuable consideration. Sometime in the year 1973 the said Krishna Kanta Patitunda sold the said 10 decimals of land to the plaintiff for valuable consideration and delivered possession of the same in favour of the plaintiff. The remaining 15 decimals of land was retained by the said Bela Rani. The said property has been described in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint. The defendants are the heirs and legal representatives of the said Bela Rani and the defendants sometime in the year 2000 constructed a tin shed in the said 'ka' schedule property and dispossessed the plaintiff. When the plaintiff objected to the acts of the defendants the defendants alleged that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit property. The plaintiff later on came to learn that through mistake Bela Rani has mentioned Dag No. 408/531 in the deed executed in favour of the said Krishna Kanta Patitunda but actually the said 10 decimals of land in Dag No. 408 was transferred in favour of Krishna Kanta Patitunda. When Krishna Kanta Patitunda sold the suit property to the plaintiff the correct Dag Number was mentioned in the sale deed and also the boundaries were described correctly in the said sale deed. The plaintiff alleged that the said Bela Rani was not the owner of Dag No. 408/531 and she never possessed any such Dag and as such the said Dag No. 408/531 was never sold by the said Bela Rani. In fact, according to the plaintiff, 10 decimals of land in Dag No. 408 was sold by Bela Rani to the said Krishna Kanta Patitunda but taking advantage of the mistake in the title deed of Krishna Kanta Patitunda the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff asked the defendants to demolish the room which are illegally constructed in the suit property and deliver up possession of the same in favour of the plaintiff but since the defendants refused to do the same the plaintiff had to file the said suit. The plaintiff has prayed for a decree for a declaration of the plaintiff's right, title and interest of the 'ka' schedule property of the plaint and also for a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff after removal of the tin shed construction from the 'ka' schedule property of the plaint. Alternatively, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for declaration of the plaintiff's right, title and interest in respect of the said 10 decimals of land and a decree for partition.
(2.) The defendants contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and contended inter alia that the said Bela Rani was the original owner of the said plot No. 408 comprising an area of 25 decimals of land and the said Bela Rani Biswas died sometime in March, 1995 leaving behind her only daughter Smt. Suchitra Sarkar. The said Bela Rani Biswas died in her own residential dwelling house and her daughter Suchitra Sarkar also died in the self-same property leaving behind her only daughter i.e. the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 is the husband of the defendant No. 1. That on the death of Suchitra Sarkar the defendant No. 1 has been residing in the suit property along with her husband and family and the defendants have been in long possession of the suit property by paying land revenue to the State Government. According to the defendants an Objection Case No. 135 under Section 51A(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was filed by the plaintiff before the Settlement Circle Office, Santipur, Nadia in respect of such 10 decimals of land in Plot No. 408 but the said objection was disallowed by the authority concerned as the plaintiff failed to produce the relevant documents before the authority concerned. The defendants further alleged that the original construction was made by Bela Rani Biswas which comprised of one big tile shed with verandah on two sides along with courtyard and shed for the shelter of cows. The said Bela Rani Biswas, according to the defendants, also installed one tubewell. The plaintiff subsequently filed an application before the B.L. & L.R.O., Shantipur, Nadia under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in respect of the said 10 decimals of the land but the said application was also disallowed. The defendants alleged that the name of Bela Rani Biswas was recorded in the R.S. Records of right and also in the Hal L.R. R.O.R. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) The said suit came up for final hearing when evidence was adduced on behalf of the respective parties. The Learned Trial Court by judgement and decree dated 6th April, 2004 dismissed the said suit on contest without costs. The Learned Trial Court found inter alia that from the oral evidence it will appear that it was never proved that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was any cause of action to file the said suit. The Learned Trial Court further found that the plaintiffs also could not produce rebuttal evidence against the documents of possession especially the finally published R.S. and L.R. Record of Right. Accordingly, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the said suit.;