NEMAI CHANDRA MAHALDER Vs. DILIP RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant Nos. 9 to 11 in a suit for declaration of title, partition and for permanent injunction have preferred the instant appeal against the judgement and order being No. 28 dated December 19, 2018, passed by the Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Malda, in Title Suit (Partition) No. 166 of 2017 whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs as well as the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code filed by the defendant Nos. 9 to 11 were disposed of by directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of nature, character and possession of the suit property as on that date till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) The plaint case in a nutshell runs as follows:

(3.) One Baseruddin Mondal was the owner of RS Dag No. 210 measuring about 445 decimals out of 890 Decimal in RS Dag No. 210. The suit property is a tank and has been described as schedule "Ka" property in the plaint of the said suit. After a portion of the RS Dag No. 210 stood vested to the State, the remaining portion measuring about 445 Decimals was recorded under Khatian No. 149 in the name of Abinash Chandra Chakraborty. Baseruddin Mondal while owning and possessing the 8 annas share in the suit property died. Upon his death his right, title and interest devolved upon his son Khalek Mondal. Khalek Mondal subsequently died and upon his death his only son Mahabur Mondal being the plaintiff No. 2 inherited the right, title and interest to the extent of 8 annas share in the "Kha" schedule property. The plaintiff No. 2 was in ejmal possession with the defendants in respect of "Kha" schedule property. The plaintiff No. 2 by a registered deed of conveyance dated March 20, 2016 sold and transferred 233 Decimals out of 445 Decimals in RS Dag No 210 in favour of the Plaintiff No. 1. Upon the death of Abinash Chandra Chakraborty, his right, title and interest to the extent of 8 annas share in the "Kha" schedule property devolved upon his heirs and heiresses being the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The plaintiff No. 1 is in possession of RS Dag No. 210 measuring about 445 Decimals by carrying on pisciculture in the said tank. The defendants threatened to take forcible possession of the tank in question on 16.6.2017 by ousting the plaintiffs from the possession of the suit tank. The said defendants also disclosed that the defendant Nos. 9 to 11 became the owners of the suit tank by way of successive transfers from the defendant Nos. 1 to 6.