Bibek Chaudhuri - (1.) The instant application under Section 114 read with Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the CPC) has been filed by the respondent numbers 1-3 praying for review of the judgment and order dated 19th May, 2017 passed by Hon'ble Justice Tapash Mookherjee, as his lordship then was, in S.A No. 70 of 1998.
(2.) The applicants as plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants/appellants/opposite parties in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatal which was registered as Title Suit no 167 of 1994.
(3.) It was contended by the plaintiffs/respondents/applicants in the said suit that one Bipin Bihari Sarkar was the original owner of plot no. 817 measuring an area of 49 decimal of land and plot no. 823 measuring and area of 12 decimal of land. After the death of said Bipin Bihari Sarkar, his wife Gnyanodabala alone inherited the suit property. The said Gnyanodabala transferred the suit property by executing a deed of sale on 4th January, 1928 which was subsequently registered on 6th June, 1928 in favour of one Sitangshu Bhusan Chakrobarty. During his lifetime, Sitangshu Bhusan Chakrobarty constructed a house over a portion of plot no. 817. He died in the year 1365 BS corresponding to 1958 A.D leaving behind the respondents/ applicants as his legal years. One Mihir Lal Charkroborty, who was the brother of Sitangshu Bhusan Chakrobarty used to reside by constructing a dwelling house over plot no. 829. Mihir Lal Charkroborty, died in the year 1364 BS. Sometimes, in 1392 BS, the dwelling house of the defendants/ appellants who are the legal heirs of the said Mihir Lal was completely destroyed and they requested the respondents to permit them to reside temporarily in the house constructed by Sitangshu Bhusan Chakrobarty, predecessor in interest of the respondents/ applicants on plot no. 817. The respondents permitted them to stay in the suit premises situated on plot no. 817 out of sympathy as licensees on condition that they would vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the suit property as and when required by the respondents. The respondents requested the appellants/ Opposite parties to vacate the suit premises on 21st Shrabon, 1401 BS, but the appellants refused to vacate the suit premises and claimed title over the suit property as per revisional settlement record of rights. The respondents/ applicants further pleaded that their predecessor-in-interest Sitangshu Bhusan Chakrobarty entrusted his brother Mihir Lal to get the suit property recorded in his name during R.S operation, but Mihir Lal illegally managed to record his name in the R.S Record of Rights. Therefore, the plaintiffs/ applicants also prayed for declaration of their title over suit plot no. 817 and further declaration that the R.S record of rights in respect of suit property was baseless and erroneous.;