BAIDYANATH GHOSH Vs. SHRI ISWAR MAKAR CHANDIMATA THAKURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application being C. O. No. 1792 of 2006 arising out of Misc. Appeal No. 126 of 2004 and the revisional application being C.O. No. 1793 of 2006 arising out of Misc. Appeal No. 98 of 2004 have been heard and disposed of together.

(2.) The Title Suit being No.17 of 2004 was filed by Shri Shri Iswar Makar Chandimata Thakurani through a registered organization namely Chandi Shabait Sangha being represented by Tapas Chatterjee, S/O. Late Bholanath Chatterjee, one of Shabait of the deity and Deb Kr. Chatterjee, another shabait of the deity. The other suit being Title Suit No. 8 of 2004 was filed by Chandi Shabait Sangha, Makardaha being represented by Tapas Chatterjee and Deb Kr. Chatterjee. In both the suits, the plaintiffs sought for a declaration that the suit property was part and parcel of the Debutter property. Prayer was also made for injunction, restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating the suit property and from making any change in the nature and character of the property. The trial Court passed an ad-interim injunction, directing the petitioners and the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. Challenging that order, Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 2004 was filed before the learned District Judge. The aforesaid appeal was, however, rejected by the learned District Judge. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Court in Civil Order No. 992 of 2004. The order of the Appellate Court was, however, affirmed in the Hon'ble Court. Subsequently, the application for temporary injunction and also the petition under Order 39, Rule 4 C.P.C. were taken up for hearing. The learned Civil Judge once more directed both the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit property, restraining them from changing the nature and character of the property. The order was again challenged in Misc. Appeal. Both the Misc. Appeals, however, were rejected by the Appellate Court. Challenging that order, the two instant revisional applications have been filed.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the appellant in both the revisional applications, Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that the trial Court totally failed to appreciate the aspect that right from 1960, the suit property was treated as a secular property. There were series of transactions regarding the transfers of the lands by the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners. Registered deeds were executed, confirming the right, title and interest in the present predecessors over the suit land. The transfers being fait accomplice, the reality of the suit property being a secular property cannot be changed after decades of acceptance of the aforesaid position.