Prasenjit Mandal, J.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 14, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Arambag, District Hooghly in Title Appeal No.19 of 2005 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated April 28, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Arambag in Title Suit No.144 of 1999.

The plaintiff / appellant herein instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.144 of 1999 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and other consequential reliefs stating, inter alia, that the suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint originally belonged to one Kedar Muchi, father of the plaintiff and the C.S. record of rights was prepared in his name showing as 16 annas owner. Kedar Muchi died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving his wife, Ramanibala and three daughters, namely, Kalibala, Sukhabala and Gitabala (plaintiff). They inherited the property of Kedar Muchi. Kalibala died leaving without any child or husband. Her share was inherited by Ramanibala, Sukhabala and Gitabala. The heirs of Sukhabala relinquished their shares in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and those heirs have been added as the defendant no.s 5 to 9. After the death of Ramanibala, the plaintiff became 16 annas owner in the suit property and she has been possessing the suit property all along. One, Satish Ruidas who was a stranger of the suit property, got his name recorded in the R.S. record of rights in respect of 12 annas share in the suit property. The L.R. record of rights stands in the name of his successor, defendant no.4. The defendant no.4 threatened the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit property. So, the suit has been filed.

The defendant no.4 only contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the contentions raised in the plaint. According to him, the C.S. record of rights in the name of Kedar was not proper. The plaintiff did not inherit the suit property as contended. Kedar Muchi died long time back before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. The R.S. record of rights had been duly recorded in the name of Satish Ruidas to the extent of 12 annas and the name of the wife of Kedar had been recorded rest 4 annas. The L.R. record of rights in the name of defendant no.4 had been properly recorded. The defendant is in possession of the suit property to the extent of 12 annas share for more than 12 years and so, the suit should be dismissed.

On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit on contests against the defendant no.4 and ex parte against the rest defendants without costs. The First Appellate Court reversed the said decree by allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant no.4.

Thereafter, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:-

“I. Whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge by totally overlooking the fact that the plaintiff had led sufficient evidence showing that there was no foundation of the entry in the Revisional Record of Rights and it was for the defendant no.4 to prove that notwithstanding the different entry in the C.S. Record of Rights there was justification of entry in the Revisional Record of Rights;

II. Whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge by misapplying the principles which are required to be followed where there are conflicts of recording between two or more record of rights.”

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record and the written arguments submitted by both the parties, I find that the C.S. record of rights in respect of the suit property as described in