Joytosh Banerjee, J. - (1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.9.94 and the decree dated 3.12.94 passed by Sri H.C. Das, the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court, Contai in T.A. No. 8/94 setting aside the judgment dated 6.3.93 passed by Sri Santanu Roy, the learned Munsif, 1st Additional Court, Contai in T.S. No. 12/91.
(2.) Plot No. 228 of Mouza Balvadrapur under P.S. contai in the district of Midnapore, measuring about 3 decimals is the subject matter of the suit and the said suit property has been described in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint. The plaintiff/respondents have filed the suit for declaration in respect of the 'Ka' Schedule property with consequential relief alleging, inter alia, that the 'Ka' Schedule property is situated in between plot Nos. 227 and 229 and the properties appertaining to those plot Nos. 227 and 229 along with other properties previously belonged to Ramesh Chandra Barui. The plaintiffs, through different kobalas purchased 9 decimals of land situated on the eastern portion of the plot Nos. 227 and 229 from the said Ramesh Chandra Barui. After their purchase, they began to possess the property by paying rent to the landlord. It is alleged that, since long, prior to such purchase, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff Ramesh Chandra Barui had residential house on the eastern portion of plot No. 227, plot No. 229 and also on plot No. 228. After their purchase as stated above, the plaintiffs began to possess the lands thus purchased and the suit land like their predecessor-in-interest by way of one compact block and in this way they were in possession of the suit land for more than 60 years. It is further alleged that when the defendants and some other villagers claimed the suit land as the path way for the use of people in general of the locality, the plaintiffs on enquiry came to learn that the suit and was shown as the pathway for the use of the people in general of the locality, in the last R.S. record of rights. It is specifically alleged that the suit land as described in R.S., R.O.R. was never used as a path way by the people of the locality. On the other hand the plaintiffs and before them their predecessor-in-interest openly and without interruption and resistance enjoyed the said land as their own. The predecessor-in-interest used and enjoyed the suit land as his own before transferring it to the plaintiffs, in one compact block and in this way the right of the actual owner of the land was extinguished through the adverse possession of such land by the plaintiffs and before them by their predecessor-in-interest for more than 60 years.
(3.) The defendant, State of West Bengal contested the suit on a written statement. Besides denying the material plaint allegation, the defendant/State specifically alleged that the suit plot which was recorded as a pathway, originally belonged to Durgadas Roy and Annapurna Dasi in equal shares and those persons were big raiyats who did not retain the suit land which stood vested in the State.;