Jyotirindra Nath Hore, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court at Midnapore dated 5 -11 -76 in T.A. No. 357 of 1973 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Midnapur in T.S. No. 99 of 1971. The plaintiff -appellant instituted the said title suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the allegations that he purchased by a registered Kobala dated 5 -6 -64, the disputed property from defendant no. 5 and since then was in possession of the same. He paid rent till 1375 B.S. and received dakhilas. Before his purchase, the plaintiffs vendor was in the khas possession of the suit land which was retained by him by submitting Return in the 'B' Form on 22 -4 -69. The Tahsildar of the State Government threatened the plaintiff with dispossession from the suit land alleging that if had vested in the State. It was alleged that the entries in the record of rights were erroneous and the disputed land could not vest in the State of West Bengal.
(2.) The State of West Bengal contested the suit by filing a written statement. The defence case was that the suit land had vested in he State and the plaintiff by his purchase had not derived any title in the same and the State of West Bengal had taken possession thereof.
(3.) Upon a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Munsif has held that the plaintiffs vendor retained the suit land by filing Return in Form 'B' within the prescribed period and the plaintiff acquired good title to the suit land by his purchase by a registered Kobala dated 5 -6 -64 (EXt. 1). He has further held that the plaintiff was all along in possession of the suit land since the date of his purchase and the alleged surrender of the suit land by the plaintiffs vendor Nalini on 28 -3 -67 long after purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff could not affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. He accordingly passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring his right, title, interest and possession in the suit and permanently restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession in the suit land.;