- (1.)This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sixth Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 159 of 1975, setting aside the judgment and decree of dismissal as passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Baruipore, in Title Suit No. 190 of 1973 and decreeing the suit.
(2.)The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit land and for permanent injunction.
(3.)It was the case of the plaintiff in brief that the suit land previously belonged to Abhoy Charan Naskar, Haripada Naskar, Ananda Naskar, Kalidas alias Kalicharan Naskar and Bamanmoni Naskar. Kalicharan Naskar was the defendant No. 1 and he had his 1/8th share in the land. When Kalicharan Naskar was aged about 5, all the co-sharers sold the entire suit land to Panchu Tarafdar and Gopal Tarafdar by the kobala dated 14-3-1951. In that kobala Bamanmoni Naskar represented the minor Kalicharan as his guardian. Bamanmoni was the paternal aunt of Kalicharan. It was recited in the said kobala that Bamanmoni sold the share of Kalicharan for legal necessity to maintain Kalicharan. The plaintiff who is the son of Haripada purchased the suit land from Panchu Tarafdar and Gopal Tarafdar on 31-1-1967. The defendant No. 1 tried to disturb the plaintiff's possession and caused damage by taking away the fruits etc. from the trees on the suit land on the allegation that the defendant had title and possession in the suit land. The plaintiff accordingly brought the suit for the relief as claimed. The defendant No. 1 Kalicharan alone contested the suit. His defence was that Bamanmoni Naskar never acted as his guardian and that she had no authority to sell the share of the minor Kalicharan as his guardian. It was further contended that Kalicharan was in the care of his another distant aunt Patalmoni and that Bamanmorf was not in charge of the care of the minor Kalicharan and his share in the joint property. Bamanmoni being not the guardian of Kalicharan in any way transferred the share of the minor Kalicharan without legal necessity by the kobala dated 14-3-1951. Accordingly, the purchasers namely the Tarafdars did not acquire any title in respect of the share of Kalicharan in the suit land. Consequently the plaintiff by his purchase from Panchu Tarafdar and Gopal Tarafdar did not acquire any title to the share of Kalicharan in the suit land. It was further contended that he had been exercising his possession for more than 12 years in the suit land after attaining majority and that, the plaintiff had no interest and possession in the suit land.