B.Panigrahi, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the confirming Judgment and Decree passed by the 4th Court of the Additional District Judge, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 258/80 dated 22nd December, 1981 dismissing the plaintiffs appeal.
(2.)The facts leading to this appeal are summarily stated :-
That the appellant who was the plaintiff in T.S. 34/83 in the S.D. Court of Munsif at Jhargram filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit property known as 'Nutanpukar' appertaining to Mouzsa, Ramgarh in Plot Nos. 78 and 79 originally belonged to the ancestors of the defendants 1 to 10. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the ancestors of the landlords/defendants had agreed to lease out the suit tank with the surrounding bank following which the plaintiff executed a Kobuliyat in favour of the landlords who had accepted the same and passed receipt in lieu of rent. Thus, the plaintiff became a tenant in respect of the disputed Tank with its bank under the defendant landlords. During the subsistence of tenancy, The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 came into force and pursuant to the said provision the right, title and interest whatever the defendant landlords had, prior to the vesting, became vested in the State Government.

(3.)Three sets of written statements were flied by the contesting defendants but the stand taken by them is almost identical. It is claimed by the defendants that plot nos. 78 and 79 are not agricultural lands. The suit land is a tank which was given to the plaintiff at a yearly Jama of Rs. 200/-. It was further agreed between them that the plaintiff shall pay 'Minkar' for a term of 8 (eight) years ending with 1367 B. S. The interest of the defendants did not vest in the State Government. The plaintiff cannot claim any right, title and interest over the suit plot under the State of West Bengal. Defendants Nos. 17 to 23 had, however, submitted in their written statements that they purchased 2 annas shares out of four annas shares of Bankim Behari Das Roy from the suit property and defendant no. 14 purchased the same interest over the suit land. Therefore, the suit at the instance of the plaintiff is said to be untenable.
;