JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the affirming Judgment and Decree dared 17th November, 1975 and 9th February, 1976 passed by the Additional District Judge, 12th Court, Alipur in Title Appeal No. 221/76 arising out of the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Barulpur in Title Suit No. 39/74 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs title was declared and granted recovery of possession of the suit land. 2. Essential facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :– The suit land measuring 2 decimals in R. S. Plot No. 4747 appertaining to current Khatian No. 133 corresponding to C. S. Plot No. 5684 of Khatian No. 137 in Kamrabad Mouza originally was recorded in the name of one Ramanath Pramanik as Korfa-tenant After the death of Ramanath Pramanik the Korfa-tenancy right had devolved upon his son Kalipada. Kalipada sold the suit plot to Satish Chandra Pramanik under a deed of conveyance dated 9.4.1949. After death of Satish Chandra, the suit land has been inherited and in occupation of his son, viz , the plaintiffs. During the R. S. Operation, the tenant raised objection on the ground that deft constructed a pacca building on the suit land 5/6 years ago by taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs. Thus, it gave rise the cause of action to plaintiffs for filing the suit. 3. The appellant who was the defendant in the trial Court has seriously resisted the claim of the plaintiff by denying all materials allegations of the plaint. She, inter alia, contended that the suit plot belonged to her father-in-law Amritalal Pramanik which was devolved upon its sons on his death. She purchased the suit plot from one Sanatan and his brothers by registered Kobala dated 20th January, 1969. After acquiring the suit land by purchase, he constructed a pacca structure thereon. Thus, the plaintiff have had no title nor possession whatsoever on the suit land. 4. The learned Munsif has, however, observed that since in the record of rights the name of plaintiffs was recorded which no doubt established their possession over the suit land, although the record of rights by itself is not an evidence of title but the plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of possession, manifestly the plaintiff's claim must be allowed on the basis of such record of right. It has been further stated that the father of the plaintiff was recorded as Korfa-tenant in respect of suit land. Therefore, the tenant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. With those observations the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The trial Court has, inter alia, held that though the sale deed under which the defendant claimed vide Ext. 'A' had been proved whereunder her husband and his brother had conveyed the suit land to the defendant but how those property had been acquired by their father could not properly be proved. 5. The appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court also discussed that the plaintiff had acquired the property on the basis of a registered sale deed of the year 1949 vide Ext. 3. In the opinion of the appellate Court, since the name of the plaintiff's father Ramanath was recorded in the C. S. record of right as Korfa-tenant, the plaintiff shall get absolute title over the suit properties. In R. S. record of right it has been also shown the plaintiffs' right as Korfa-tenant. It was reiterated that the record of right carries presumptive value, particularly, when a person claims title by virtue of his possession. The appellate Court in course of discussion has also held that the recitals of the sale deed in Ext. 'A' under which the defendant has been claiming title and possession does not establish that how her father-in-law acquired the property. Therefore, in this background, lower Courts on fair comparison of the competitive claim of title between the parties held that the plaintiff was able to establish better title over the defendant. 6. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, has, at the out-set, strongly urged that in this case both the Courts have manifestly committed errors in deciding title in favour of the plaintiff. Inasmuch as even assuming that the plaintiff has purchased tenancy right of the suit property vide Ext. 3, such purchase being illegal and imperssible under law does not afford any right to them. Accordingly, even without going to the other aspects of the case, the plaintiff's claim of title on the basis of sale deed in bound to be rejected. Inasmuch as even assuming that the plaintiff has purchased tenancy right of the suit property vide Ext. 3, such purchase being illegal and imperssible under law does not afford any right to them. Accordingly, even without going to the other aspects of the case, the plaintiff's claim of title on the basis of sale deed in bound to be rejected. It has been further argued that nonetheless is the R. O. R. the name of the plaintiff might have been recorded ; but once the sale under which the plaintiff's father purchased if found invalid, the plaintiff's name in the R.O.R. will not in any case strengthen their title. 7. Mr. S. S. Haque, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, has supported the observation of the learned trial Court by stating since the name of the plaintiff's father was recorded in the C. S. as well as R. S. record of right, therefore, irrespective of the invalidity of the transaction on being prohibited in law that Korfa right is not legally transferable, the plaintiffs have acquired valid right. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are bound to be upheld in this appeal. Assuming that the defendants' predecessor-in-interest were the owners over the suit property, but their right stood extinguish after the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1958 came into operation. The plaintiff therefore, became the tenant directly under the State and accordingly, they are entitled to the relief for declaration of title. 8. Admittedly, Amritalal Pramanik was the owner of the suit plot and on his death his three sons including the husband of the defendant acquired the property by devolution of interest. C. S. Plot No. 5684 shows that it was in possession of Amritalal. Ramanath was a Korfa-tenant. The expression of 'Korfa-tenant' means under raiyat. Though the transfer of Korfa right is permissible after the consent of the raiyat, nowhere it has been claimed by the plaintiff that such transfer was made after taking consent from the raiyat. It is to be assumed that before transfer no consent was obtained from the raiyat nor the plaintiff has stated this fact in their pleadings or in the evidence. 9. The defendant has claimed to have spent Rs. It is to be assumed that before transfer no consent was obtained from the raiyat nor the plaintiff has stated this fact in their pleadings or in the evidence. 9. The defendant has claimed to have spent Rs. 10,000/- for improvement and contended that as per Section 57 of Transfer of Property Act, such claim of damages by way of compensation should have been allowed by the trial as well as by the first appellate Court. I am not in a position to accept the plea of the appellant that she had invested considerable amount for improvement of the amount nor was there any issue to that effect. The defendant had neither filed in Courts, any objection claiming compensation nor paid Court fee stamp for such claim. Mere stray statement in evidence by the defendant does not afford he to lay a claim for damages. Accordingly, I am constrained to reject this submission of the appellant. 10. Since the Korfa right is not transferable and no evidence was led by the plaintiff to establish that such property was purchased by their father after taking the consent of the raiyat it could be held that they have acquired suit property without consent which is Illegal. It is too well settled position of law that the entry in the record of right will neither create any right in favour of a person whose name has been recorded in the R. O. R. nor it would otherwise destroy such right if someone has such right. Since the sale deed under which the plaintiff's father had purchased the suit property is found to be invalid, the corresponding record of right prepared on such basis also will not strengthen his claim to title. Unfortunately, both the Courts have overlooked this position and decreed the plaintiff's suit. I did not notice that there has been any discussion regarding the validity of the sale deed by both the Courts. 11. Mr. Banerjee has drawn my attention that since this is a legal plea, even though, it was not taken in the written statement, it could be advanced before the 2nd appellate stage. I found there is substantial force in the said submission. Transfer of Korfa right being invalid in law without prior consent of the raiyat. I am bound to hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove their right over the suit land. I found there is substantial force in the said submission. Transfer of Korfa right being invalid in law without prior consent of the raiyat. I am bound to hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove their right over the suit land. Since I find the suit is for recovery of possession if it is held that the plaintiffs have no better right to claim for recovery of possession their suit is bound to be spurned. Mr. Haque's contention that the right of the defendant stood extinguished after the West Bengal Transfer Acquisition Act came into force is bound to be rejected as such plea was not taken in written statement nor any issue was framed by the trial Court or any evidence was led by either party Accordingly, I am rather, constrained to upset the findings of the learned Courts below and finally dismiss the suit. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside and the plaintiff's suit is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without cost. In the result the appeal is allowed.