GHULAM MOHIUDDIN Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim in this suit is for respective declarations that the lease dated June 23, 1964, the agreement of tenancy dated May 1, 1964 and the tenancy referred to in para 20 (c) of the plaint are null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs. The admitted facts are inter alia that in Sept. 1962, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 alone with one Golam Rasul (since deceased) jointly purchased premises No. 2 Chingrihat'. a Lane, Calcutta at an auction sale bv the Official Assignee, the defendant No. 1, held in execution of a mortgage decree passed against the then owner one Khaja Shamsuddin. The plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Golam Rasul one of the joint purchasers. Subsequent to the said purchase certain facts came to light, namely that in a suit for dower being suit No. 1172 of 1958 filed by one Jamela Begum the defendant No. 2, the said Shamsuddin allowed an ex parte decree to be suffered against himself and in execution of the said decree, the said premises was caused to be attached and purchased by the decree-holder, the defendant No. 2 abovenamed. On May 10, 1963, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the said Golam Rasul the auction purchasers caused a suit being suit No. 833 of 1963 to be instituted against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 inter alia for declarations that the said ex parte decree passed in favour of the defendant No. 2 was null and void, and that the sale in purported execution of the decree was also null and void, and for other reliefs. On Sept. 1, 1'967, the defendant No. 2 consented to a decree being passed in the said suit No. 833 of 1963, setting aside the sale in her favour. Subsequently however the plaintiffs came to know further that the defendant No. 2 had during the pendency of the said suit No. 833 of 1963 purported to create a lease in favour of J. D. Norton and Sons Ltd. the defendant No. 3 and purported tenancies in favour of A. K. Products and Bengal Rubber Manufacturing Co. the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 abovenamed in respect of the said premises 2, Chingrihatta Lane, Calcutta. It is these tenancy agreements and the lease which are sought to be challenged in this suit. Only the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 have entered appearance and filed written statements in this suit.

(2.) On an application by the plaintiffs the plaint was allowed to be amended and it was inter alia pleaded further that no part of the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation.

(3.) The parties went to trial on the following issues settled, and by consent refrained from raising any other issue end in particular any issue of fact, which were expressly left open to agitate in future proceedings, if any. 1 (a) Is the suit a suit for land as alleged by the defendants Nos. 3 and 4.? (b) If so, has this Court jurisdiction to receive, try and determine this suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act 1963? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation ?