JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. This second appeal has come up for admission. Mr. Bhaskar Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the appeal is required to be admitted on the ground that both the courts below on misconception and misreading of materials on record along with Section 3A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 arrived at a wrong finding.

2. The second appeal is arising out of the appellate judgment and decree dated 27th May, 2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Paschim Medinipur, in Title Appeal No. 130 of 2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court Paschim Medinipur, in Title Suit No. 136 of 1995.

3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff alleged that the suit property consists of two plots, previously belonged to one Balai Singh. At the relevant point of time, the suit land was barren land. The plaintiff’s father-in-law Jang Bahadur Thakur at the relevant time was dealing with dairy business in Midnapore town and in search of a suitable place in Midnapore town for doing the said business in 1965 he approached Balai Singh for getting the suit land on lease. At the instruction of Balai Singh, the plaintiff’s father-in-law levelled the suit land and removed the bushes.

4. In view of the fact that the plaintiff with the intervention of her father-in-law and through her husband approached to the owner of the suit land Balai Singh for yearly lease of the suit land. In 1965 Balai agreed to give the suit land on lease @ Rs.5/-per annum in favour of the plaintiff. In the year 1981 the plaintiff constructed a ‘pucca’ two rooms along with service privy and used to reside with her family there.

5. In view of the amendment of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1981, the right, title and interest in the suit property of the land owner Balai Singh was vested to the State and the plaintiff being the yearly tenant of the suit land, as per the provision of said Act, became the direct tenant under the State of West Bengal. Though the plaintiff was residing at the suit land having right, title and interest by virtue of amendment of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1981 in the last L.R. settlement, the suit land was erroneously recorded in the name of Balai Singh as owner and the name of the plaintiff was recorded as permissive possessor under Balai Singh.

6. In view of the fact that the plaintiff became raiyat under the WBLR Act as per provision of the Amendment Act, the plaintiff made a claim for correction of the L.R record by including her name as raiyat in respect of the suit land. Although record of rights previously mentioned the plaintiff as permissive possessor and she was enjoying the suit property without any resistance or interpretation.

7. Balai Singh died leaving behind his sons, the defendants. The plaintiff has been possessing the suit property for more than 30 years having knowledge of the actual owner Balai Singh. The plaintiff accordingly claimed ownership by way of adverse possession. It is also alleged that on 18th June 1995 on the basis of erroneous recording in the ROR the defendants wanted to disturb the possession of the plaintiff from the suit land, which resulted in the present suit.

8. The defendants entered in the suit and filed written statement. In the written statement the defendants claimed that Balai Singh was tenant under Amarendralal Khan, zamindar of Narajal, upon payment of tax of Rs.5/-yearly in respect of plot no. 408/690 and plot no. 409/92. In the R.S.R.O.R the suit land was recorded in the name of Balai Singh, predecessor of the defendants. While Balai Singh has been enjoying the property, he died leaving behind his four sons, three daughters and wife as his legal heirs. Subsequently, his wife died. At the L.R settlement the suit property was recorded in the name of Balai Singh in L.R parcha. Balai Singh never gave the suit land on lea