DIPTI BASU ALIAS DIPTI CHATTERJI Vs. NAMITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against order No. 79 dated 16.6.90 passed by the Second Additional Court of Munsif, Alipur in Title Execution Case No. 8 of 1985.

(2.) Facts of this case are not in controversy. One Krishna Chandra Basu was a tenant in the disputed property since sometime in 1940. He died in 1960, leaving behind one Manik Basu, Gita Basu, petitioner Dipti Basu among others. The petitioner Dipti Basu was then aged about 10 years. Opposite Party No. 1 Namita Das became owner of the disputed premises by purchase on 23.5.1973. She filed a suit against opposite party No. 2 + Gita Basu for eviction. Gita pleaded that on the death of Krishna Chandra all his heirs inherited the tenancy and therefore the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties. The said ejectment suit being T. S. No. 383 of 1976 (renumbered as T.S. 33 of 1982) ultimately ended in a decree on 28.1.85. Title Appeal No. 229 of 1985 proved unsuccessful. Second appeal being S.A.T. 1540 of 1986 also failed. The decree-holder put the decree in execution. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted Tide Suit No. 159 of 1986 in the fourth court of the Munsif, Alipore and asked for temporary injunction restraining the decree-holder from interfering with her possession. Her plea is that she inherited her father's tenancy. The learned Munsif rejected the application for temporary injunction. The petitioner lost in appeal. Her revision also did not succeed.

(3.) In Title Execution Case, No. 8 of 1985 peaceful possession could not be delivered to the decree-holder on account of the resistance by the petitioner. Now the decreeholder-opposite party asked for police help under rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders. The petitioner entered appearance and filed objection. The said objection has been rejected and the prayer for police help has been granted. So the petitioner feels aggrieved.