Joytosh Banerjee, J. - (1.) The present second appeal is directed against the (and ?) decree of dismissal passed by Sri S.K. Dam, Assistant District Judge, Baruipur in the District of 24-Parganas(S) in T.A. No. 114/93. By the judgment impugned the learned appellate Court below affirmed the findings of the Trial Court passed in T.S. No. 96/90, through which the learned trial Court decreed the suit, declared right, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent in the suit property and also passed a decree for recovery of khash possession of the suit property by evicting the defendant/appellants therefrom.
(2.) Shortly put the facts and circumstances leading to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff/respondents brought the suit alleging, inter alia, that the suit property appertaining to Khatian No. 223 of Mouza Kaksaha in Plot No. 511 originally belonged to Bhagabati and Shyama Charan Bandhopadhyaya and their names were duly recorded in the finally published R.S. R.O.R. After the death of Bhagabati Debi her share of 10 decimals land in the suit plot devolved upon her heirs and similarly on the death of Shyama Charan his share of 8 decimals of land devolved upon his heirs. While the heirs were in possession of the suit property, they transferred 16 decimals of land out of 18 decimals to the plaintiffs/respondents by a registered deed on 7.8.90. It was further alleged that the principal defendant who contested the suit had no title and interest in the suit property and such defendant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. In that background, the plaintiffs/respondents were constrained to file the suit. Subsequently, there was an amendment of the plaint whereby the plaintiff/respondents prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 1/appellant contested the suit on a written statement alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had no right, title and interest over the suit property, the alleged sale deed was a collusive deed. Which was never acted upon and the plaintiffs had no possession over the suit property. The contesting defendant/appellant further alleged that she acquired right, title and interest over the suit property by adverse possession.
(3.) Both the Courts below held concurrently held that the plaintiff/respondents acquired right, title and interest over the suit property by virtue of their purchase through Ext.1, the sale deed executed by the heirs of the original owners and the defendant who began to possess the suit property with the permission of the original owners could not possess the same adversely and therefore, she did not acquire any right, title over the suit property and in this background, the plaintiff/respondents were entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit property on a declaration of their right the over such property.;