Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next argues that relief (b) of the plaint seeks a negative declaration, which is barred by law.

9. It is contended further that the plaintiff has claimed merely possessory title, which is not maintainable in law, particularly in view of absence of proper pleadings to support it.

10. Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Section 43 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which has also been relied on in the plaint (more particularly, in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint), could not confer any right on the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1, since the plaintiff was allegedly registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, and became a juristic entity in the eye of law, only on December 18, 1976, while the said amended section came into force subsequently, only on January 17, 1977.

15. As to possessory title, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 submits that the averment of uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the opposite party no. 1 is only an alternative pleading, supplementary to the title pleaded under Section 43 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint.

16. It is next submitted on behalf of the opposite party no. 1, by placing reliance on Sections 45 and 46 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, that those sections provide for transfer only on dissolution of farms, formed within the contemplation of Section 43. As such, there could not be any transfer unless there was dissolution of the farm. Hence, the transfer challenged in relief (e) was, in any event, de hors the law and void.

33. The contention of the petitioner, that the plaintiff claimed mere possessory title, for which the plaint ought to be rejected, is also not based on sound footing. This is so because the way in which relief a) has been couched, could take within its fold the right flowing from Section 43 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

34. The other argument of the petitioner, as to Section 43 of the 1955 Act being not applicable to the present case since the amended section came into force from January 17, 1977 while the plaintiff‐Society was formed on December 18, 1976, is also not in consonance with law, since the section, as it stood before such amendment, was not materially different from the amended provision, insofar as the relevant portions thereof are concerned.