JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order no. 18 dated 06.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kakdwip, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 22 of 2019 present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred. By the impugned order learned court below has been pleased to allow plaintiff’s prayer for amendment of the plaint. In the prayer for amendment of the plaint plaintiff has sought to incorporate that in the plaintiff’s purchase deed schedule mentioned suit property, though the C.S. Plot No. has been correctly mentioned as 1529, being deed no. 4993 but corresponding to said plot no. 1529, the R.S. Plot no. has been wrongly written in the deed as 1796 instead of 1523. In fact said plot no. 1796 is owned by one Sneholata pyke and others and is non-suited property and said plot no. 1796 was never owned by Sachidananda Maity or his predecessor. In fact by the said deed, C.S. plot No. 1529 corresponding to R.S, plot No. 1523 in southern portion measuring 0.50 acres of land was transferred by Sachidananda Maity in favour of plaintiff’s father and in the LR. Record of Rights plaintiff’s name has been duly recorded.

2. Brief background of the plaint case is that the suit plot being C.S. Plot No. 1529 having an area of 0.98 acre of land originally belonged to two brothers namely Prasanna Kumar Maity and Biswanath Maity. Subsequently Biswanath Maity died as bachelor leaving behind said Prasanna Kumar Maity as his only heir. At the time of R.S. Settlement the said C.S. Plot No. 1529 having an area of 0.98 acre was renumbered as R.S. Plot no. 1523 having an area of 1.54 acre under R.S. Khatian No. 188. After the death of Prasanna Kumar Maity the said land have been inherited by his three sons Santosh, Satish, and Sachidananda as per the law of inheritance. Said land was partitioned in the year of 1959 among the said three heirs amicable by meats and bounds. By way of partition said Sachidnanda was allotted an area of 0.50 acre(southern part) out of 1.54 acre and Santosh was allotted rest 1.04 acre (northern part) and other heir Satish Kumar got non suited land.

3. Plaintiff’s further case is on 05.06.1963 by virtue of a registered deed of sale being no. 4993 for the year 1963, said Sachidananda transferred his share measuring 0.50 acre (southern part) in favour of father of the plaintiff. In the L.R. Record of rights the land being plot no. 1523 having an area of 0.50 acre has been duly recorded in favour of plaintiff’s father and after the death of plaintiffs’ father, the plaintiff became owner of said plot of land. Similarly the other heir Santosh Kumar Maity transferred 0.25 acre out of 1.04 acre in plot no. 1523 by virtue of registered deed of gift, in favour of Binapani Maity and in the L.R. record of rights, her name was duly recorded in khatian no. 2328 and she has been possessing the said land by constructing dwelling house. Santosh subsequently by another deed transferred 0.39 acre out of said 1.04 acre in favour of Satinath Maity and Santosh also transferred an area 0.20 acre out of 1.04 acre in favour of Rajesh Maity and another area of land measuring 0.02 acre in the eastern part out of said 1.04 acre in favour of said Rajesh Maity.

4. Plaintiffs further case is that said Santosh had no possession and had no right to transfer said 0.02 acre of land in eastern part out of 1.04 acre as pathway in favour of Rajesh Maity in the eastern part of the plot no. 1523. After death of Santosh rest area of 0.18 acre out of 1.04 acre has been inherited by his four sons. Plaintiffs further case is taking advantage of a