IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Suit not barred under the proviso to under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
(2) Appellants cannot challenge the said finding of the trial court and urge that the compromise petition was legal, valid and effective.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.—Defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction are the appellants before this court challenging the concurrent finding of fact by the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. For proper adjudication of the instant appeal, the following facts are required to be put on record:

3. The respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants stating, inter alia, that they purchased 2.79 decimal of land in khatian No.24 by auction purchase from Tamluk Central Co-operative Bank by two sale deeds and also from defendants No.2, 3, 5 and 9 by seven sale deeds. Thus, the plaintiffs became the owners of 2 anas, 16 gondas, 2 karas and 2 kranties share in the said khatian No.24. However, in RS Record of Rights plaintiff’s names were recorded in respect of only 2 anas, 1 gonda and 1 kara land erroneously and the remaining share of land was not recorded in their names. The remaining share of land is the subject matter of the suit. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the names of defendant No.1 was wrongly recorded as a bargadar in respect of plot No.117. On the strength of such erroneous entry, the defendants were trying to create disturbance on the plaintiff’s lawful possession over the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance in the matter of peaceful enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs.

4. Defendant No.1 and 4 contested the suit by filing written statement.

5. It was contended by defendant No.1 that he was a recorded bargadar in respect of plot No.117 and he used to cultivate the land as bargadar the delivered share of the produce to the plaintiffs regularly.

6. The case of the defendant No.4, on the other hand is that he and his brother Srimanta had 1/6th share in respect of the property recorded in khatian No.24. They mortgaged their share to one Khetro Bera. Subsequently the heirs of Khetro Bera filed a Mortgage Suit No.136 of 1938 in the 3rd Court of learned Munsif [now, Civil Judge (Junior Division)]. The said suit was decreed and the decree was put in execution. In execution one Bhupen Bera purchased the said 1/6th share of land situated in khatian No.24. Subsequently the said Bhupen Bera sold out the said land to defendant No.4 orally at a sum of Rs.625 in 1353 B.S. It was also contended by defendant No.4 that one Bhajahari was the cosharer in respect of another 1/6th share of land in khatian No.24. After the death of Bhajahari and his wife Kalashi and daughter Kadambini inherited the said property and Kadambini sold out her share in favour of defendant No.4 by executing a deed of sale dated 12 Falgun, 1360. Thus, the defendant No.4 became the owner of 1/3rd share in the property in suit. The defendant No.4 further contended that the entries in RS khatian were absolutely correct. The said entries were made in terms of a petition of compromise entered into by and between the plaintiffs and the defendants in Objection Case No.21 of 1954 under Section 44(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by the witnesses, the learned trial judge by a judgment and decree dated 10th March, 1967 decreed the suit on contest against the defendants No.1-4 and exparte against the rest. Right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit property were declared and it was further declared that the entries in the RS Record of Rights contrary to the plaintiff’s title were erroneous. The defendant No.1 was permanently injuncted from cultivating plot No.117 as bargadar.

8. The judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.8 of 1966 was challenged in Title Appeal No.177 of 1967 by the defendant No.1 and 7. The said appeal was allowed on contest. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge was set aside and the suit w