(1.) This revisional application arose out of an Order No, 150 dated 08.02.2006 passed by Sri Asit Kumar Dey -II, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 17 of 2000 for declaration and permanent injunction of the suit property belonging to one Khepibala Biswas which she inherited from her mother Ambalika Biswas, wife of late Fatik Biswas. During her life time she also purchased some properties. Fatik Biswas died leaving behind his wife and one daughter Khepibala. The said Khepibala died without any issue. The plaintiffs are the son and daughters of Fatik Biswas's brother the paternal uncle's son and daughters and as such under the Hindu Succession Act they inherited the suit properties. The plaintiffs have been possessing the suit properties by paying rent to the State of West Bengal. The said Khepibala was looked after by the plaintiff No. 1, his wife and sons during her life time till death in the year, 1999. The plaintiff No. 1 and his sons have been cultivating the suit property. After the death of the said Khepibala ritual ceremonies were performed by one Sunil Kumar Biswas, one of the sons of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 also inherited 2 /3rd share of the property left by Khepibala.
(2.) The defendant No. 7, Haran Chandra Biswas, son of Khepibala's deceased husband's brother's son, on 15.01.2000, tried to enter into the suit property claiming himself as the owner of the suit property and also declared that he has sold some of suit properties to the dsfendant Nos. 1 to 6. The defendant Nos. 1 and 4 to 6 appeared in the said suit arid filed their joint written statement. The defendant No. 7 neither entered appearance nor filed any written statement in the said suit.
(3.) The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) called for book volume from the concerned office. The petitioners raised objection stating in the written objection that the petitioners being the paternal uncle's son and daughters of Fatik Biswas, the father of Khepibala, inherited the suit properties as per Hindu Succession Act and they have good title and possession over the suit propoerties. The petitioners emphatically denied that the petitioner No. 1 has created a forged deed in his favour in respect of the portion of the suit properties. The opposite parties did not mention the particulars of alleged deeds either in their written statement or in examination in chief of D.W.1 The opposite party No. 1 and 4 to 6 also filed their reply dated 17th January, 2006 against the petitioners' written objection thereby disputing the objection rayed by the petitioners.