QUORESH KHATOON Vs. NISSAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The facts or the background of this appeal in brief as made out in the plaint and written statement are as follows : The plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the entire 31L, Raicharan Ghosh Lane including the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff No. 1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff No. 2 for the construction of a shed over the suit property and the said shed was finally built up at the instance of the plaintiff No. 2 as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiff No.2 took possession of the suit property and the same was kept under lock and key at the gate. But during the absence of the plaintiff No. 2, the defendant forcibly occupied the suit shed. Accordingly, a diary was lodged in the local police station but the police did not take any action. The defendant was asked to quit and vacate the factory premises in the suit but he did not pay any heed to it. Accordingly, this suit was filed by the plaintiff being Title Suit No. 32 of 1977 before the learned 1st Additional Court of Munsif at Alipore.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and denying all the material allegations of the plaintiffs. The defendant has further stated that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit property and that he (defendant) is the owner of the suit structure as a thika tenant of the land in suit from the time of Khairunnesha Bibi. The defendant has mentioned that the story of dispossession in entirely false.

(3.) On the above pleadings the following issues have been framed for deciding the suit:- 1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and at law? 2) Is the suit property valued and the Court fees paid sufficient? 3) Have the plaintiffs and right, title and interests in the suit property? 4) Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree as prayed for ? 5) To what other relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ?