JUDGMENT

JASWANT SINGH, J.:— This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Calcutta under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (1) of Art. 133 of the Constitution read with S. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of a suit, being Title Suit No. 82 of 1952 instituted on July 8, 1952 in the Sixth Court of the subordinate Judge at Alipore, District 24-Parganas, West Bengal, by Kumud Bala Dasi, the original plaintiff, against the appellant, who is the Official Receiver of the High Court, as the principal defendant, and Birajabala Debi, widow of Probodh Chandra Chatterjee, as pro forma defendant, for declaration that she had permanent Kayami Mourasi Mukarari Title to the suit land measuring 6 Cottas, 4 Chhataks and 4 Sq. ft. situate on Barrackpore Trunk Road within District 24-Parganas, West Bengal and that the possession of the appellant thereon was illegal and wrongful as well as for Khas possession of the said land after demolition and removal of the structures and shop rooms standing thereon and for mesne profits.

2. The case as put forth by the plaintiff was that property measuring about 9 Cottas, 12 Chhataks detailed in Schedule Ka forming annexure to the plaint was held by one Dayamayee as a tenant under the Official Receiver of the High Court at Calcutta, who was appointed as such in the equity suit of the former SC at Calcutta between Gopalmoni Dasi and Ramonath Thakur, on a rental of Rs. 33/12/- annas per annum; that Dayamayee died leaving a will bequeathing the aforesaid property to her brother, Ram Chandra Jana, who obtained probate of the will and got into possession of the said property; that on the death of Ram Chandra Jana, the said property was inherited by his only son, Jiban Krishna, from whom she (the plaintiff) purchased the same in the benami of Probodh Chandra Chatterjee, deceased husband of Birajabala Debi, the pro forma defendant, by a registered kobala dated May 9, 1922 for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/-; that thereafter she continued to remain in possession of the said property and to pay the aforesaid annual rent and not only effected improvements on the already existing structures but erected several other structures as well; that by making false representations that the said 9 Cottas and 12 Chhataks comprised two plots, one of which i.e. the suit land measured 6 Cottas, 4 Chhataks and 4 sq. ft., the predecessor of the appellant got a separate number allotted to it by the Corporation; that the Official Receiver instituted Title Suit No. 317 of 1939 against her in the 1st Court of the Munsif at Sealdah claiming arrears of rent in respect of the aforesaid Ka schedule property as also the amount paid by way of taxes and her eviction therefrom which was decreed against her on May 3, 1941; that aggrieved by the said decision, she preferred an appeal in so far as it related to her eviction from the said property but did not prefer an appeal against the other part of the decree relating to rent and taxes; that the said appeal was decided and decreed in her favour on March 11, 1942 by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Alipore, who held that the tenancy held by her being a permanent one. she was not liable to be evicted from the property; that on July 22, 1941, the Official Receiver took out execution of the money portion of the decree obtained by him in Title Suit No. 317 of 1939 in the First Court of the Munsif at Sealdah praying that the decretal amount be got realized by attachment and sale of her immovable property comprised in premises No. 27/H/4, Barrackpore Trunk Road standing on approximately 6 Cottas, 4 Chhataks and 4 Sq. ft of the aforesaid land viz. one storeyed four roomed pucca structure with fittings and fixtures and two roomed structure on the first floor, seven shop rooms with fitting and fixtures and all interest therein valued approximately at Rs. 100/- that on August 8, 1941, the said property belonging to her was attached by means of a prohibitory order under O. 21. R. 54