- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for respective parties. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 38 of 1998 against the defendant and the said suit was placed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Bankura. The plaintiffs, claiming to be the owners of the suit property by virtue of purchase by registered deeds dated 24.10.1979 and 13.6.1980, alleged that the defendant requested the plaintiffs for grant of a licence in respect of the suit property for a temporary period and the defendant was referred to the plaintiffs by one Manindra Das, a relative of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that the plaintiffs, subsequently, needed the suit property and served a notice to quit upon the defendant but the defendant did not vacate the suit property and, hence, the said suit was filed for evicting the defendant from the suit property. The defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement and denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The defendant denied the allegation of grant of licence and claimed to have acquired title in the suit property by way of adverse possession and has been residing in the suit property for more than twelve years since 1983. The defendant's case was that the suit property was originally owned by one Brinda Dasi in 10 annas share and the remaining 6 annas share vested in the State. The defence case was that in the vested land the defendant installed the idols of Kalimata and Mansamata and a committee which was constituted for the pujas of the said deities had appointed the defendant as a priest for the said puja. The defence case was that the said committee made arrangements for accomodation of the defendant and his family in the suit property. The defendant alleged that it is not clear from whom the plaintiffs' vendor got the suit property. The said suit came up for hearing when evidence was adduced on behalf of the parties. The learned Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 27.6.2003 decreed the said suit on contest and directed the defendant to quit and vacate the suit property within a stipulated time, failing which the plaintiffs were given liberty to execute the decree.
(2.) The finding of the learned Trial Court was to the effect that the defendant at first took the plea that there might be a presumption of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties but subsequently the written statement was amended by deleting the said pleading and the defendant has stated in the written statement that in order to avoid the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act the plaintiffs have filed the said suit. The learned Trial Court in its judgment observed that the defendant was puzzled about his defence because his earlier motive was to take a plea of tenancy but subsequently he changed his mind and took the plea of adverse possession and after that the defendant incorporated another story by way of amendment of the written statement that 6 annas share in the suit property had vested in the State. The learned Trial Court found that the defendant has not mentioned any specific date as to when he came into possession of the suit property and he has not filed any cogent document or independent corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim of adverse possession. The learned Trial Court found that the defendant has failed to establish the case of adverse possession. The learned Trial Court noted the fact that even though the defendant had pleaded adverse possession the defendant also stated in the written statement that the said puja committee had appointed him as a priest and had accommodated him in the suit premises, The learned Trial Court found that the plaintiffs have proved their purchase deeds which indicate that the suit property is well-demarcated and the plaintiffs have purchased the land excluding the portion which has been acquired by the 'Board' in respect of plot No. 600 for creating a pathway. The learned Trial Court found that the defendant failed to prove the allegation that 6 annas share in the suit property had vested in the State. The learned Trial Court observed that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that a portion of the suit property had vested in the State the defendant cannot claim ownership in such property unless the Government allots the vested land to the defendant. The learned Trial Court found that admittedly the suit property is not a debuttor property and as such the story of deity, shebaitship, formation of a committee is bogus.
(3.) The learned Trial Court found that the defendant did not file any paper to show in support of his claim that he was appointed as a shebait or that the 6 annas share in the suit property had vested in the State. The learned Trial Court recorded that the defendant stated in his evidence that he does not know whether Basanta Ghosh is the son of Brinda Dasi or whether Rabi Lochan Ghosh is the son of Basanta Ghosh. The learned Trial Court further noted that D.W.1 stated in evidence that he has no paper in support of his alleged ownership of the suit property or the alleged committee's ownership of the suit property or that a portion of the suit property had vested in the State. The learned Trial Court found that the defendant stated in his evidence that he does not know whether or not the plaintiffs are the owners or possessors of the suit property and that he is residing in the vested land and not in the land owned by the plaintiffs and/or in the suit property. The learned Trial Court considered the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.4 which reveals that the said witnesses are not aware of the particulars of the suit property and/or its ownership.;