The burden of proof is on the person who asserts a claim of thika tenancy or adverse possession.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, 24-Paraganas in Title Suit Nos. 112 and 209 both of 1982.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY late Gholam Quadir, the owner in khas possession of the disputed six cottahs of land more or less mentioned in the schedules of the plaints, died sometime in 1959 leaving behind him his widow Feroza Jahan Begum alias Feroza Jahan Quadir, two sons Sultan and Sartaz and four daughters Munawar, Anwar, Quamar and Tajwar who succeeded to the said property according to the rules of Mohammedan Law. Admittedly Abul Kalam (the sole plaintiff in Title Suit No. 209 of 1982) is in possession of the suit land at present along with certain other persons whom he claims to have inducted and they all have been running businesses separately there.

( 3 ) ABUL Kalam filed Title Suit No. 209 of 1982 (originally Title Suit No. 123 of 1981) against Feroza Jahan Begum, Jahrul Islam (the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 112 of 1982) and a few others for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing with his possession over the disputed land. He claimed to be a thika tenant of the suit land since June 1966. From his plaint and his written statement in Title Suit No. 112 of 1982 his case appears to be the following :-abul Kalam took the suit land in thika tenancy in June 1966 from Firoza Jahan Begum at a rental of Rs. 200. 00 per month. He has been possessing the same along with the structures. He paid rent to Firoza Jahan Begum but when she refused to accept the same he started depositing the same in the Court of the learned Thika Controller. The deposits of 1967 and 1968 were made by him showing one Abdul Shakoor as the thika tenant. While making these deposits he i. e. , Abul Kalam described himself as the constituted attorney of the said Abdul Shakoor. This was done at the instruction of his learned lawyer since at that time he was carrying on business in the suit land jointly with Abdul Shakoor and held a power of attorney from him. Abul Kalam was compelled to file the suit as Jahurul Islam in collusion with Firoza Jahan Begum and her children was threatening to oust him from the suit land.

( 4 ) THIS suit was contested by Jahurul Islam the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 112 of 1982. His version - as per his written statement in Title Suit No. 209 of 1982 and plaint in Title Suit No. 112 of 1982 - is the following :-feroza Jahan Begum allowed one Abdul Shakoor to stack drums etc. in the suit land for six months with effect from 1-6-66 at a fee of Rs. 200. 00 per month. She also issued a receipt for Rs. 1,200. 00 in his favour. The receipt specifically mentioned that the land was in vacant state and it also prohibited the licencee to build any structure on it. Abdul Shakoor did not vacate the suit land after six months. On the other hand Rs. 200. 00 per month was deposited with the learned Thika Controller by Abul Kalam himself in 1967 and 1968 describing himself as Abdul Shakoor's constituted attorney and claiming thika tenancy for Abdul Shakoor. Abdul Shakoor surrendered the suit land to Feroza Jahan Begum on 1-5-69. Abul Kalam, however, then trespassed into the suit land in 1975. He somehow managed to get the receipt granted by Firoza Jahan Begum to Abdul Shakoor, erased the name of Abdul Shakoor and put his own name there and he also made other changes in the receipt to suit his convenience, in 1975 he filed another application under S. 17 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 claiming to be thika tenant of the suit land himself.

( 5 ) ABUL Kalam raised certain unauthorised structure on the suit land in 1967. In a Demolition case the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta passed an order of demolition in respect of the middle front portion of the said construction. In another such case a similar order was passed on 27-7-82 for demolition of the rest of the construction.

( 6 ) FIROZA Jahan Begum and all her children transferred t