- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 30th March, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 54(A)/25 of 1997 affirming the judgement and decree dated 5th May, 1997 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Additional Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No. 38 of 1992 at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not.
(2.) Here is the case, where we find that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. He claimed that the suit property was settled with one Makhanlal Banerjee by Refugee Rehabilitation Department. The appellants further claimed that subsequently the suit property was sold by Makhanlalbabu to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on 2nd July, 1969. Since the legal heirs of the said Makhanlal Banerjee who are the defendants/respondents in this appeal started creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the original plaintiff in the suit property, the original plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration of his title in the suit property and for injunction for restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession in the suit property. The defendants appeared in the said suit and contested the same by filing written statement. They claimed that the suit property was never settled with Makhanlal by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department. They further claimed that the suit property was settled with them by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department by a deed of indenture dated 22nd December, 1987. Thereafter they got their names mutated in the record of rights. They have paid revenue to the State of West Bengal. They got the building plan sanctioned by the competent authority and raised construction thereon. It is also stated by them that though the original plaintiff wanted to get his name mutated in the record of rights on the strength of the deed of transfer executed by Makhanlal in his favour, but he ultimately failed to get his name recorded as raiyat in the suit property. The defendants, thus, prayed for dismissal of the said suit.
(3.) The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and their evidence held that the suit property was never settled in favour of Makhanlalbabu by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department. As such, Makhanlal did not acquire any title in the suit property. Learned Trial Judge, thus, held that since Makhanlal did not acquire any title in the suit property, the plaintiff also could not acquire any title in the suit property by virtue of his purchase of the suit land from Makhanlal. Learned first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court. The legality and/or correctness of the judgement and decree of the learned first Appellate Court is under challenge in this second appeal at the instance of the legal representatives of the plaintiff/appellants. Let us now consider as to how far the courts below were justified in passing the judgements and/or decrees. Though the original plaintiff claimed that the suit property was settled with Makhanlal by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department, but no document of such settlement could be proved by the appellants. In the absence of any document regarding settlement of the suit property in favour of Makhanlal by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department, we hold that the courts below were justified in holding that Makhanlal had no title in the suit property. Though it is rightly pointed out by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants that once a settlement is made with the settlee by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department, the settlee cannot transfer the demise land with any stranger within ten years from the date of such settlement without the written permission from the competent authority, but, here is the case where we find that even the settlement of the suit land by Makhanlal by the Refugee Rehabilitation Department could not be proved. As such, we hold that we need not consider this part of the submission of the learned advocate of the appellants in the facts of the present case.;