The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proper adjudication of property disputes and the opportunity for parties to amend pleadings and present their case effectively.

JUDGMENT :

1. The defendants of Title Suit No.8 of 1992 have assailed the judgment and order of remand of the suit for fresh trial passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No.159 of 1997.

2. Salient facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are stated below:-

3. One Tulshi Charan Mondal, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and partition of their share which was registered as Title Suit No.8 of 1992 in the 10th Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Alipore. Subsequently, however, by filing an application for amendment of plaint the respondents/plaintiffs deleted the prayer for partition. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents is that one Khetromohan Mondal was the original owner in respect of 26 cents of land in plot No.4291 appertaining to khatian no.291 and 38 cents of land in plot No.4291/4408 of khatian No.289 of mouza Chandi within P.S Bishnupur, 24 Parganas (South).

4. After the death of the said Khetromohan Mondal, his sons namely Aghar and Bipin Mondal inherited the suit property. Subsequently the said Aghar and Bipin settled 16 cents of land out of 26 cents of land in plot No.4291 in favour of one Harimati Dashi and Rabiram Pramanick. The appellants are the legal heirs and successors of the said Harimati and Rabiram. Aghar died leaving behind the original plaintiff as his sole heir in the year 1962. Subsequently in 1965, Bipin expired unmarried. So original plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs/respondents that Aghar and Bipin took loan of Rs.400/- from Harimati and Rabiram jointly. Subsequently, Bipin also took loan of Rs.500/- from the predecessor of the defendants. At the time of disbursement of loan the predecessors of the defendants obtained thumb impression of Aghar and Bipin on some blank papers. Though entire loan amount was repaid by the said Aghar and Bipin, the defendants illegally converted the said documents into sale deeds. Sometimes in January, 1992, the defendants/appellants tried to construct a room over the land under possession of the plaintiffs/respondents. However, they were resisted by the respondents. The respondents requested them for amicable partition in respect of 16 cents of land in plot No.4291, but the appellants refused to accept such proposal. Therefore, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents filed Title Suit No.8 of 1992 for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

5. The defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing written statement. Specific defence case is that the defendants are the owners of 16 cents of land in plot No.4291 and entire 38 decimals of land in plot No.4291/4403 by virtue of purchase and settlement. In other words, the appellants are the owners of 57 cents of land out of entire 64 cents of land in two plots. Therefore, the appellants filed a counterclaim praying for partition in respect of their share in the suit property against plaintiffs/respondents.

6. On the basis of the pleadings the learned trial judge framed as many as six issues. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases, both oral and documentary. The learned trial judge on due consideration of evidence on record dismissed the suit filed by the respondents and decreed the counterclaim filed by the appellants.

7. It was held by the learned trial court that the suit filed by the predecessor of the respondents is not maintainable on the ground that the description of the property for which the respondents claimed declaration was vague; the property cannot be identifiable for want of proper description. However, the learned trial judge held that the suit was maintainable in respect of the claim for declaration of title of respondent's ownership in respect of plot No.4291/4403.

8. The learned trial judge further held that the predecessors of the defendants/appellants, namely Harim