- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Counsels for the respective parties. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit being T.S. No. 426 of 1981 (which was placed before the learned 2nd Munsif s Court at Contai) for declaration of title and injunction in respect of certain lands. The plaintiffs case was that the suit lands originally belonged to one Bikramaditya Das Mahapatra who sold the Ka schedule land by a registered kobala dated 02.07.1958 to the plaintiff No.1 and the Kha schedule land to the plaintiff No.2 by another registered kobala dated 06.01.1961. The plaintiffs case was that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands on payment of rent and mutation of their names in the R.S. records and that the suit lands which have been recorded as Akrishi are not liable to be vested under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The plaintiffs case was that the State authorities subsequently refused to record the plaintiffs names in the records-of-right and also refused to admit the title of the plaintiffs.
(2.) It appears that only the State of West Bengal, the defendant No.1, contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The essence of the contentions raised by the said defendant was that the suit is not maintainable, the said Bikramaditya Das Mahapatra was not allowed to retain any non-agricultural land and the suit plots were not included in non-agricultural tenancy khatian. The said defendant s case was that the alleged purchases made by the plaintiffs were made after the date of vesting of the said lands in the State of West Bengal and as the suit lands had vested in the State of West Bengal the plaintiffs cannot get any relief in the suit.
(3.) The learned Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 4.7.1986 decreed the said suit on contest against the defendant No.1 and ex-parte against the rest. The learned Trial Court declared the plaintiffs right, title and interest in the Ka, Kha schedules land respectively and the defendants were restrained permanently by way of injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs land is anyway whatsoever. The defendant No.1, challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, preferred T.A.26 of 1987/T.A. 76 of 1987 which was placed before the learned Court of Assistant District Judge, Contai. The learned Lower Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 23 rd December, 1987 allowed the title appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the said suit.;