S.N.Sanyal, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Murshidabad dismissing the plaintiff's suit after reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Jangipur.
(2.) The plaint case is that the suit property originally belonged to one Sikhar Basini Roy, pro-defendant No. 2, since deceased. Ram Kishan, Bhakat, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff took settlement of the suit property from pro-defendant No. 2 in 1359 B.S. at an annual rental of Rs. 10/- and used to reside there with his nephew. Durga Prasad Bhakat who constructed a pucca house on the suit land. Durga Prasad died in 1359 B.S. leaving behind his two sons, plaintiff and pro-defendant no. 3. Thereafter Ram Kishan died in 1966 leaving his grandsons, plaintiff and pro-defendant no. 3, as his heirs. The plaintiff obtained the suit property by virtue of an amicable partition. The municipal tax for the house upon the suit land has been assessed in the name of the plaintiff since 1961. As the plaintiff was away from the suit property during the settlement operations, the suit property was recorded as khas land of pro-defendant no. 2 in the R.S. record of rights and the plaintiff has been recorded to be in permissive possession of the same. The suit land was also shown in the R.S. Records as vested land. In the R.S. records the aforesaid entries are wrong and the defendant no. 1, state of West Bengal, is trying to disturb the plaintiff's possession. Hence the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendant no. 1 contended that the suit land was in khas possession of the ex-intermediary and as the ex-intermediary did not opt to retain the same, it vested in the state as surplus agricultural land. The defendant no. 1 also denied the settlement in favour of the plaintiff.
(3.) The suit was originally decreed. Thereafter an appeal was preferred. The suit was sent back on remand for hearing of the suit afresh with an opportunity to the plaintiff to prove the rent receipt, marked 'X' for identification. The parties were given opportunity to adduce further evidence. After remand, the plaintiff proved the rent receipt, (Ext. 6) by giving further evidence. The learned Munsif decreed the suit on the finding that Ram Kishan took settlement of the suit land from pro-defendant no. 2 and the plaintiff is the legal heir of Ram Kishan Bhakat. The learned Munsif found that the plaintiff had title to the suit property and he was in possession of the same. The learned Munsif further held that the defendant no. 1 failed to prove that the suit property was vested in the state. The entries in the record of rights are wrong. The learned Munsif granted a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 challenged the said decision before the learned District Judge. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving the tenancy right in the suit property. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned Judge seems to have accepted the contention made before him by the learned Advocate for the defendant that the suit land was not an agricultural land. Moreover, the learned Judge also held that there was no evidence that Sikhar Basini authorised the alleged Gomasta to grant the settlement of the suit land on her behalf. The learned Judge, thus, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has challenged the said decision in the present appeal.;