SIRAJUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2013-2-32
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 13,2013

SIRAJUL ISLAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants against a judgment of reversal.
(2.) THE appellants along with respondent No.7 Nurul Islam filed a suit being Title Suit No.224 of 1971 in the Court of learned Munsif, First Court, Arambagh. The plaintiffs' case, in short, may be summarized as follows:- The properties described in item No.1 of the schedule 'Ka' appertaining to Khatian No.252 originally belonged to Alahi Box Chowdhury who gifted the same along with other properties to his son proforma defendant No.2 by a deed of gift dated 20th Aswin, 1345 B. S. (1937). Said proforma defendant No.2 sold away the same to the plaintiffs' father and predecessor Munsi Rahim Box by a registered sale deed dated 7th of March, 1943 (23rd Shravan, 1949 B. S.). The properties described in item No.2 of the 'Ka' schedule originally belonged to one Abdulla Chowdhury. On his death the same devolved upon his wife and heirs who sold the same to plaintiffs' predecessor Munsi Rahim Box who came into possession of the same. The 'Kha' schedule land belonged to Munsi Rahim Box who died in 1947 leaving behind plaintiffs as his heirs. 'Kha' schedule land duly recorded in the name of plaintiffs in the R. S. Khatian. However, the 'ka' schedule land was erroneously recorded in R. S. Khatian in the name of proforma defendants though they never claimed to said properties. The properties described in 'Ga' schedule of the land belonged to plaintiffs' predecessor Munsi Rahim Box. The plaintiffs became owners of the same on his death. Plaintiff Nos. 5, 6 and 7 relinquished their share in said property in favour of plaintiff No.1-4. The R. S. record was accordingly recorded in the name of plaintiff Nos. 1-4 only. The mother of plaintiff No.7 died in 1964 and she made an oral gift of her share to her only son i.e., plaintiff No.7. The plaintiff Nos. 1 ­6 and mother of plaintiff No.7 filed B-Form and duly retained the suit lands.
(3.) BUT since June ­ July, 1968 the Defendant State threatened the plaintiffs by declaring that the suit lands have been vested under Section 10(2) and that possession of the same would be taken under Section 10(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.