A civil suit for declaration of title based on an independent cause of action is maintainable despite entries in the Record of Rights, and Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide questions of title.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - Defendant of Title Suit No.44 of 1987 is the appellant before this Court being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court at Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Appeal No.121 of 1987 on 27th July, 1988 affirming the judgment and decree dated 6th May, 1987 and 16th May, 1987 passed in the aforesaid suit, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal.

2. One Promodh Chandra Das, plaintiff/respondent No.1, Subodh Ranjan Das the principal defendant and the appellant herein and Bimal Ranjan Das were three sons of one Abhay Charan Das, since deceased. Other proforma respondents are their kinsmen. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No.44 of 1987 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and partition in respect of 1/3 share in the suit the suit property on the pleading that the parties to the suit were originally residence of East Pakistan. Sometimes in 1949/1950 the plaintiff and his two brothers migrated to India and took shelter at Shibpur in the District of Howrah. Subsequently, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 secured job in the food department of the State of West Bengal. However, the defendant No.1/appellant was terminated from his service. Sometimes in the year 1953/54 the plaintiff, defendant No.1, proforma defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3 purchased the suit property situated at mouza Uttor Bhavanipur within P.S Chakdaha in the district of Nadia together with some non suited properties in the names of the defendant No.1 and proforma defendant No.3 out of the fund from the joint family of the plaintiff/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. Half of the purchase money was also paid by the father of the defendant No.3. The plaintiff was given to understand that as he was an employee under the State of West Bengal there might be some difficulty if the suit property was purchased in his name. However, since purchase the plaintiff, defendant No.1, proforma defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 jointly owned and possessed the suit property according to their respective shares. Subsequently on 13th December, 1954, there was an amicable partition amongst them and by virtue of the said partition, the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and proforma defendant No.2 jointly began to possess the suit property remaining proforma defendants started possessing their share separately from them. That on 10th May, 1955 the principal defendant No.1 executed a registered deed of patta in favour of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.2 to the extent of 2/3rd share of the suit property at yearly rent of Rs.9/-. Principal defendant No.1 was entrusted to record the names of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No.2 in RS record of Rights during revisional settlement. The plaintiff blindly believed his brother that he would record the names of the plaintiff as well as proforma defendant No.1 in the Record of Rights. Subsequently, in 1977 the defendant No.1 disclosed that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.2 had no share or right, title and interest over the suit property. The plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 for affecting amicable partition in respect of the suit property according to their share but he flatly refused to recognize the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.2 as joint owners of the said property. So the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.34 of 1978 before the learned Munsif, Ranaghat.

3. The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he denied all allegations made out by the plaintiff against him. Specific case of the defendant No.1 is that he purchased the suit property on payment of half of the total consideration money. Subsequently there was a partition between him and proforma defendant No.3 and after partition he alone has been possessing the suit property. The plaintiff and proforma defendant No.2 has no right, title and interest over the suit property.

4. On the basis of the pleadings the learne