C.N.Laik, J. - (1.) Jejur, a village well known in the District of Hooghly for producing big people, is the seat-bed of this litigation and over about 3 bighas of land only, in which the defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit by the respondent for a declaration that the appellant is a mere Bargadar in respect of the disputed property and not a tenant, either at cash or produce rent. Relief is also claimed that the entry thereof in the record of rights is wrong and the same is not binding on the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) The plaintiff's case in short was that the defendant-appellant took bhag settlement from the plaintiff and delivered bhag produce upto the year 1342 B. S. Though the defendant is a Bargadar, the G. S. record, recorded him as a korfa tenant. The entry therein that the property is liable to assessment of rent was wrong. Against such alleged wrong recording, the plaintiff filed an objection under the provisions of Section 44(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Assistant Settlement Officer inter alia corrected the records with respect to the entry "liable to assessment of rent" and in its place, the entry "half share produce" was recorded. The plaintiff's appeal to the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 44(3) of the Act, met with dismissal on the ground that the appeal was barred by time.
(3.) The defence in short was that the defendant-appellant was a tenant and not a Bargadar; that he had been all along in possession as such, and the entries in the record of rights are correct.;