- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: The Plaintiffs/Respondents filed T.S. 95 of 1988 against the Defendants/Appellants and Defendants/Respondents which was placed before the learned 2nd Court of Munsif, Tamluk. The Plaintiffs prayed for a declaration of title in 171/2 decimals of land mentioned in ka schedule of plaint by way of inheritance and that the R.S. record-of-right is erroneous in respect of the said property and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs in the said property. The Plaintiffs alternatively prayed for a decree for declaration that property described in Ga, Gha, Uma and Cha schedule properties are ejmali properties of Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 and joint possession of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No. 1 be declared in respect of the said properties and the Defendant No. 1 be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from disturbing the ejmali possession of the Plaintiffs in respect of the said property.
(3.) The Plaintiffs' case was, inter alia, that the kha schedule property to the plaint comprising of plot Nos. 488, 490, 667 and 694, Khatian No. 78 measuring 35 decimals at Tamluk originally belonged to one Adwaita Kumar Jana and after Adwaita's death his sons, Iswar and Balaram, inherited the properties having 8 annas share each. On Iswar's death his son Satyeswar inherited Iswar's share and on Balaram's death his minor son Nagendra inherited Balaram's share. Kunjabala, Nagendra's mother, sold Nagendra's 8 annas share to Ram Chandra Jana, the father of the Plaintiffs, by a registered deed dated 17.9.1919. Ram Chandra died in 1350 BS leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his heirs. Satyeswar who had 8 annas share in the suit property sold 2 decimals of land in plot No. 694 to Plaintiff No. 2 on 6.2.1967, 5 1/2 decimals of land in plot No. 667 to Defendants 5 and 6 in 1969 and 5 decimals of land in plot No. 488 to Defendant No. 4 in 1970. On Satyeswar's death his heirs and legal representatives sold his share in plot No. 490 to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiffs' case was that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no right, title and interest in Ka schedule property and that the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs' further case was that the Defendant No. 1's name has been erroneously recorded in the R.S. record-of-right showing that the Defendant No. 1 has 4 annas share in kha schedule property and on the basis of such erroneous entry the Defendants are denying Plaintiffs' title and threatened the Plaintiffs with dispossession.;