RUMI SEIN Vs. SANJAY SUREKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land-sharks are on the prowl and they seem to care little for the battle having shifted from the turf they wish to secure to a court of law. They trade allegations on affidavit just as recklessly as they would resort to every trick not in the book to procure their cherished piece of the earth. The choice here is not between who makes out the prima facie case or defence, but in who has adopted the less dishonest stand. Since the land is in up-market Short Street in the coveted Park Street-Theatre Road area, the stakes are high; that the area the parties fight for is over 17 cottah with profitable vertical possibilities, the matter has let loose a set of audacious assertions and denials.

(2.) The Plaintiffs claim the first Plaintiff to be the executor of a yet unprobated will of one Sailabala Sein with the second Plaintiff as a legatee thereunder. The Plaintiffs allege that the Short Street property is the subject-matter of the alleged will and that the first and second Plaintiffs have sold the same to the third Plaintiff. The suit is for asserting the third Plaintiff's exclusive rights in respect of the property. The immediate interlocutory relief sought in GA No. 778 of 2011 is to restrain the Defendants from dealing with the property or disturbing the third Plaintiff's possession thereof. The other part of the claim in the suit is for a declaration that certain documents and deeds relating to the property as set up by some of the Defendants are illegal and void and the consequential injunction.

(3.) The Plaintiffs' interlocutory application also carries a prayer that the documents assailed should not be relied upon by the appropriate Defendants.