The presumption of correctness of record-of-rights entries under section 44(4) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, is rebuttable and does not oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide questions of title.

This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land as per schedule 'A' to the plaint was allotted to the share of Sm. Jagat Pabani Dasi by the final decree for partition passed in Title Suit No. 51 of 1928 of the 6th Court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore. In terms of the decree, the Receivers of her estate were required to pay some owelty money to the other parties in that suit. In order to recover his share of the owelty money, Shib Chandra Bose, one of the parties to the suit, put the decree into execution and one Brindaban Chandra Basak purchased the 'A' schedule land and the other adjacent lands in auction as benamdar of the present plaintiffs. A sale certificate was issued in the name of Brindaban who took delivery of possession of the suit land through court on November 15, 1953. Thereafter, the plaintiffs began to use and occupy the suit land in khas as a garden. Brindaban executed a deed of release in favour of the plaintiffs on December 23, 1955 disclaiming his interest in the suit land. During Revisional, Settlement Operation, the defendant managed to erect a temporary hut in the 'B' schedule land forming part of the 'A' schedule land and got his name recorded in the R.S. record-of-rights. The defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the rest of the 'A' schedule land and accordingly, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the reliefs aforesaid.

3. The defendant has contested the suit by a written statement. His defence is that his father, late Bhikary Shaw was a tenant in respect of the entire 'A' schedule and under one Sital Bose and had been in possession thereof from 1932 to 1948 and since his father's death he has been in possession there of by erecting structures and ploughing the land. He has denied the title of the plaintiffs in the suit land on the ground that the interests of the plaintiffs have vested in the State of West Bengal under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act, It is contended that the suit is barred by limitation and plaintiffs not having possession of the suit land within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit, it is not maintainable.

4. It has been held by the learned Munsiff that the plaintiffs are in possession of the entire 'A' schedule land including the 'B' schedule land forming part thereof and that the entry in the R.S. record-of-rights in respect of the 'A' schedule land recording the name of the defendant as a raiyat with occupancy right under the plaintiffs has no foundation at all and it is erroneous. Inspite of the said findings, the learned Munsiff is of the view that the interests of the plaintiffs have vested in the State of West Bengal under the provisions of the Act and, as such, the suit was not maintainable at their instance. in that view of the matter, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit

5. The lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff on the question of the plaintiffs title and possession, but disagreed with the finding of the learned Munsiff that the interests of the plaintiffs had vested in the State. Consequently, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, the Second Appeal.

6. The question whether the plaintiffs have title to the suit land and whether the defendant has acquired title to the same by adverse possession for more than twelve years are questions of fact and the concurrent findings of the courts below on these questions cannot be assailed in second appeal. Moreover, the lower appellate court has found that the interests of the plaintiffs have not vested in the State under the provisions of the Act. On this point, it has been found by the lower appellate court that after purchasing the raiyati interest of Jagat Pabani Dasi the plaintiffs came into possession of the suit land through thei