Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) This appeal by the defendants is against the judgment and decree dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arambagh, in Title Appeal No. 5 of 2012 reversing the judgment and decree dated 17th May, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, First Court at Arambagh in Title Suit No. 30 of 2007. Title Suit No. 30 of 2007 filed by the plaintiffs Smt. Sudha Ghosh and Smt. Bijola Chongdar against Sri Biswanath Chongdar and 16 others, praying for declaration and permanent injunction.
(2.) In short the plaintiffs' case is that their names were recorded in the L.R. Record-of-Rights in respect of the suit land comprised in a pond named 'Boro Pukur' originally comprised of 2.06 Acres but the defendants declared that since their names were not so recorded in C.S. and R.S. Record-of-Rights publication of their names in the L.R. Record-of-Rights was wrong and erroneous and have acquired no right and interest for such wrong recording. The plaintiffs made out a case that their predecessors-ininterest were pardahnashin and since they used to reside at their matrimonial home they reposed faith and responsibility of recording their names in the C.S. and R.S. Record-of-Rights on the predecessor-ininterest of the defendants. The said predecessor-in-interest of the defendants fraudulently recorded their names in respect of the entire property. After coming to learn the fact that their predecessors-in-interest were not recorded in the R.S. and C.S Record-of-Rights, the plaintiff got the records rectified in the L.R. Record-of-Rights. As a result the plaintiff sought for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendant nos.1 to 7, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 contested the suit by filing written statements. The defendant nos. 8 to 10 were proforma defendants and filed written statements supporting the case of the plaintiffs. The defence case of all the defendants is that the L.R. R-O-R was previously recorded in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of defendant nos. 1 to 4 and the defendant nos. 5 to 6 Anil Kr. Chongdar and Bijoy Krishna Chongdar respectively and in the name of the defendant no. 7 in respect of 1/3 share. But later the husband of the plaintiff no. 1, Sri Ajit Kr. Ghosh and brother-in-law of plaintiff no.2 who is the husband of defendant no.9, Abhay Ghosh surreptitiously in connivance with the Settlement Office recorded the names of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in the L.R. Record-of-Rights. The defendant nos. 1 to 7 stated that the suit property in dag no. 467 i.e. 'Boro Pukur' originally comprised of 2.06 sataks belonged to three brothers Natabar, Mrigendra and Satish in equal share and their names were recorded in the C.S. R-O-R in Khatian No. 138. The defendant nos. 1 to 7 stated that Ramtarak Chongdar @ Tarakchand Chongdar was the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos. 1 to 7. During the life time of Natabar his only son Bankim died and thereafter said Natabar transferred 1/3 share in favour of his daughter-in-law Motibala, defendant no.7 vide Deed of Gift and said Mrigendra, Satish and Motibala recorded their names in R.S. and L.R. Record-of-Rights in respect of entire 2.06 sataks of land in dag no. 467 (Boro Pukur). After the death of said Mrigendra his 1/3 share devolved upon his son Bijay and after the death of Satish his share devolved upon his son Ajay. Thereafter, said Ajay, Bijay and Motibala recorded their names in respect of their 1/3 share. On the death of Bijay his 1/3 share devolved upon his two sons i.e. defendant no. 5 and 6. The share of Anil, at his death devolved upon defendant no. 1 to 3 and Motibala transferred her 1/3 share to her daughter Manjusri Ghosh vide registered Deed of Gift dated 3rd April, 1970. The defendant no. 1 to 3 and said Manjusri Ghosh, defendant no. 7 transferred 06 sataks of land at the eastern side of the Boro Pukur at dag no. 467 to Samanta Khanda Paschim Dulepara Sishu Shiksha Kendra and they constructed four rooms. The defendant no.1 to 7 stated that the defendant no. 1 to 6 were in possession of 1.93 sataks of land in dag no. 467. The defendant no. 12 Manjushri Ghosh also admitted the case of defendant no. 1 to 7. The defendant nos. 13 and 14, secretary of the Samanta Khanda Paschim Dulepara Shishu Shiksha Kendra pleaded, inter alia, regarding their interest in respect of aforesaid 06 sataks of the land. The defendant no. 15, 16 and 17 in their written statement specifically stated that they obtained 04, 13, 13 sataks of properties respectively at the demarcated Southern side of dag no. 467 under Section 7 of Homestead Act and mutated their names in the settlement record. Therefore, according to the defendant the suit was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) The learned Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and prayer? 2) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary of parties? 3) Is the schedule of the plaint is vague and imperfect? 4) Is the plaintiff entitled to get relief as prayed for? 5) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is in law and equity entitled to?;