JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.

1.The instant appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 23rd March, 2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Additional Court, Purulia in Title Appeal No.6 of 1985 affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 24/11/1984 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Purulia in Title Suit No. 204 of 1982. 

2. The sum and substance of the plaint case was:

i) The land described in the “Schedule One” of the plaint originally belonged to Mati Kumar and Gati Kumar at Saturi, who used to possess the same in assertion of their permanent transferable raiyati right therein.

ii) Gati Kumar died leaving behind him his widow Achala Kumarin and two daughters Adari Kumarin and Dingli Kumarin. All the right, title and interest of Gati Kumar in respect of the suit land devolved on his legal heirs, so named.

iii) While Mati Kumar and the legal heirs of Gati Kumar were in exclusive possession of the land, they transferred the same in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 24/03/1953 in favour of one Panchanan Kumar, the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiffs.

iv) In the year 1973/74, a portion of land measuring about 0.25 acres land was acquired by the Government of West Bengal in C.S. Plot No. 1544 and 1545. Award was accordingly disbursed and prepared in the name of Panchanan Kumar in LA Case No. 37 (R) of 1973-74 and the said Panchanan Kumar received compensation accordingly.

v) Panchanan Kumar expired leaving behind him his widow, one son and two daughters who were the original Plaintiffs. Except the vested part, the rest of property devolved on the Plaintiffs.

vi) While the original Plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the suit land; a portion of land measuring about 0.29 acres out of the schedule one land had been acquired by the Defendant No. 1, the State of West Bengal in the name of Bandu Irrigation Scheme but the Award no. 155 to 160, payable on account of such acquisition were given to the Defendant Nos. 2 to 7.

vii) According to the original Plaintiffs, the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 had no right, title and interest in the suit land; therefore, awarding compensation on account of acquisition of 0.29 acres of land to the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 is not only erroneous but collusive to.

viii) It was averred in the plaint that before acquisition neither any notice had been served on the Plaintiffs nor any enquiry had been made. The names of Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 were recorded and entries were made in R.S. Settlement Operation on the basis of some alleged sale deeds dated 25/01/1965 and 18/03/1966 though such deeds are non- existent in the concerned office for the registration of deeds and documents.

ix) Plaintiffs served notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the Defendant No. 1 State.

x) The Plaintiffs instituted the suit, praying for declaration that the Plaintiffs were entitled to as raiyat of the suit land measuring about 0.29 acres comprised in schedule I; the Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 had no right, title or interest in the same; recovery of Rs.1472.36 paisa from the Defendants along with other prayers.

3. The Defendant Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 filed written statement. Apart from challenging the suit as not maintainable, barred by law of limitation, bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties, the written statement pleaded as follow:-

a) The property originally belonged to one Loahu Majhi in raiyati right and his name was so recorded in C.S. Khatian No. 198 of Mouza Satara.

b) Loahu Majhi by an oral gift transferred the property to Narottam Gosai who enjoyed the property getting the same cultivated by Bhim Kumar. On death of Narottam, the property resumed and returned to jot and the owners began to possess the same.

c) There was amicable oral partition of the property among the legal heirs of Loahu Majhi. Property in Khatian No. 198 was begotten as shared by Baneswar Bhuja and Taru; their descendants began to possess the said property.

d) The answering Defendant