Mir Dara Sheko, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.12.2005 delivered by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bankura, and decree being sealed and signed on 23.12.2005 in Title Suit No. 14 of 1996, the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') has filed this first appeal against the State of West Bengal and Circle Inspector, Khatra and Pagal Barat, the respondent-defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively. Case of the appellant, in brief, is that the suit plot No. 32 in Mouza Ledisole, having a total area of 1.85 acre, belonged to Fakir Karmakar and Satish Karmakar in equal halves.

2. Out of the said 1.85 acre said Fakir Karmakar and Satish Karmakar settled 48 decimals in favour of one Sripati Haldar, retaining 1.37 acre in their possession.

3. Satish Karmakar having died intestate as unmarried, Fakir Karmakar as the sole heir, became absolute owner of the said 1.37 acre of suit plot No. 32, as described in schedule 'Ka' of the plaint. The name of Fakir Karmakar was duly recorded in the R.S. R.O.R.

4. Further case of the appellant is that said Fakir Karmakar on 18.06.1962 transferred his entire 1.37 acre executing one sale deed covering Eastern 69 decimals in favour of Pagal Barat, the respondent No. 3 and Western 68 decimals by executing another deed in favour of Kalachand Barat, father of the appellant.

5. It is averred that said Kalachad Barat died before 1986 leaving five sons, including the appellant and one daughter. The brothers and sister of the appellant inherited the said, western 68 decimals left by Kalachand Barat. On 16.12.1985 the brothers and sister gifted their shares in said western 68 decimals to the appellant by which the appellant became the owner of the said western 68 decimals of suit plot No. 32 in Mouza Ledisole which is the suit property, as described in Schedule 'Kha', the same being part of schedule 'Ka' as described in the plaint.

6. The appellant contended that though his father permitted the respondent No. 2, the Circle Inspector Khatra to construct one office room for the Circle Inspector of Police and to possess the same in lieu of rent or licence fees at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month but after demise of his father the appellant could not trace out the rent receipts.

7. The appellant further contended that the appellant previously on 31.7.1989 filed a Title Suit No. 107 of 1989 in the Court of Munsif, Khatra against these respondent Nos. 1 and 2 apart from one Manas Prasun Haldar and Handu Karmakar, son of late Fakir Karmakar and by making Pagal Barat as proforma defendant No. 5, for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property i.e. the western 68 decimals of plot No. 32 wherein the respondent No. 1, the State though took the defence of acquisition of the said land for the purpose of construction to set up C.I. Office and quarters upon plot No. 32 but the state could not prove the same. Although the title of the appellant in that suit was established, the suit was dismissed on 20.12.1991 holding that it was hit by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act since the appellant had no possession and the decree for declaration without any prayer for recovery of possession could not be allowed.

8. The appellant in paragraph 7 of the plaint averred that while Fakir Karmakar, since deceased, was in possession of the eastern 69 decimals, he had permitted the then Circle Inspector to raise construction on assurance that the said portion would be acquired by the Government and eventually the quarters of the Inspector were also allowed to be constructed by the appellant's father on the western portion in lieu of licence fees of Rs. 250/- per month.

9. The appellant claimed that though the suit land was never acquisitioned by the Government at any point of time, although the State or the Circle Inspector of Police Department had no right, title, interest over the suit property but they having denied the title of the appellant and having claimed ri