Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM J.: - These two appeals on certificate are directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated March 27, 1962 in First Appeals from the Original Decree Nos. 311 and 312 of 1956.

2. Two plots of land bearing No. 936 of Mouza Asansol and plot No. 9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated December 13, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette of 25th December, 1947. The declaration under Section 6 dated December 30, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 8th January, 1948. For plot No 936 of Mouza Asansol measuring about 31 acres, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1707/- including Rs. 13/1/6 on account of the landlord s interest. The entire compensation in respect of this plot was directed to be paid to Bhaktbala Dasi, the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No. 436 of 1967. In-respect of plot No. 9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded as compensation a sum of Rs. 825/15/6 including Rs. 6/5/6 on account of the landlord s interest. This entire amount of compensation was directed to be paid to Bhaktbala Dam and her sister Subasini Dasi.

3. It may be mentioned that Bhaktbala Dasi is the first respondent and on the death of Subasini Dasi her son Sunil Kumar Roy, who has been impleaded in the proceedings is the second respondent in Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1967. Before the Land Acquisition Collector, in respect of both these plots, one Kashi Nath Dawn claimed title to the land and as such to the entire compensation amount. The appellants in these two appeals are the legal representatives of Kashi Nath Dawn.

4. The case of Kashi Nath Dawn was that both the plots of land belonged to Panchanan Roy, husband of Subasini Dasi, against whom a money decree had been obtained by one Jatin Kumar Roy. In execution of the money decree (Execution Case No. 120 of 1929, Subordinate Judge s Court, Asansol), the decree-holder brought these two items and certain other properties to sale. Kashi Nath Dawn claimed to have purchased these items in the Court sale and obtained the sale certificate Ex. 2. The sale was confirmed on November 27, 1930 and delivery of possession was also taken on December 10, l930. It was on the strength of this purchase in Court auction that Kashi Nath Dawn claimed title to the two plots.

5. The case of Bhaktabala Dasi, who alone contested the claim of Kashi Nath Dawn was briefly as follows: Panchanan Roy had no title to the properties and that on the other hand they belonged to Ramanugraha Roy, who died leaving his widow Manmohini and three daughters, Santabala, Subasini and Bhaktabala on the death of Ramanugraha Roy, his widow Manmohini succeeded to the property as life estate holder. As Santabala died shortly after her father s death, the properties devolved on the other two sisters namely Subasini and Bhaktabala, on the death of Mamnohini, Panchanan Roy had married Santabala and on her death he married her sister Subasini Panchanan Roy during the lifetime of his mother-in-law Manmohini was allowed to manage the properties. In the settlement proceedings of 1918-21 he surreptitiously got his name recorded as owner of one-half share in the estate of his father-in-law in Mouza Asansol and of the entire interest in Mouza Asansol Municipality. Panchanan Roy was never in possession and enjoyment of the properties whereas Manmohini Dasi during her lifetime and on her death her daughters Subasini and Bhaktabala were in possession and enjoyment. There was a partition between the two sisters of Mouza Asansol property and in consequence plot No 936 of Mouza Asansol was obtained as her share by Bhaktabala Dasi". It was on this basis that Bhaktabala Dasi claimed exclusive title to plot No 936 and the right to receive the entire compensation amount for that land She claimed that in respect of plot No 9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality, she