RAM SADAN BISWAS Vs. MATHURA MOHAN HAZRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Mathura Mohan Hazra instituted this suit against Ram Sadhan Biswas as principal defendant and Hari Sadhan Biswas as pro forma defendant in the Court of the Second Munsif at Baruipore on the following allegations:

(2.) The pro forma defendant held 7-1/2 cottas of land under Narendra Kumar Banerjee and others. The said land together with other lands were mortgaged by the pro forma defendant to one Srimanta Mondal, who enforced his mortgage and obtained a decree thereon and purchased the mortgaged lands. Sri Manta Mondal thereafter obtained khas possession in respect of 3-1/2 cottas out of the said 7-1/2 cottas, but being unable to get possession of the remaining 4 cottas whereon stood the homestead of the pro forma defendant) instituted a suit against the latter for khas possession and obtained a decree. The plaintiff purchased the 7-1/2 cottas of land along with some other lands from the heirs of Srimanta.

(3.) The principal defendant Ram Sadhan Biswas in collusion with the pro forma defendant Hari Sadhan Biswas thereafter instituted a suit for rent against the latter alleging the said 7- 1/2 cottas of land to be-only 3-1/2 cottas and recovered a decree for rent in Suit No. 168 of 1919 of the said Court and put the decree into execution in Execution Case No, 808 of 1919 of the said Court and also put the said 7-1/2 cottas of land up for sale for which a date was fixed. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs:-(a) that the plaintiff's right by purchase to the said 7-1/2 cottas of land might be declared and it be declared that the pro forma defendants had no right therein, (6) that the decree in Suit No. 168 of 1919 might be declared to be fraudulent and collusive and that the same might be set aside, (c) that a permanent injunction might be issued so that the principal defendant may not put up to auction the said 7-1/2 cottas of land, and it might be declared that the said land was liable to be sold for the debts of the principal defendant, (d) that a temporary injunction might be issued so that during the pendency of the suit the principal defendant may not put up to sale the said lands in Rent Execution Case No. 808 of 1919 of the said Court or in any other execution case relating to the said decree, and it might be declared that the said Execution Case No. 808 of 1919 was a fraudulent one, (e) that it might be declared that the said decree or Execution Case has not affected the plaintiff's rights and that the plaintiff is not bound thereby, and (f) that a temporary injunction might be issued to the effect that the said land may not be put up to sale. It is unnecessary to refer to two other reliefs that were claimed.