P. Mandal, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order No. 17 dated July 12, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 96 of 2009 thereby allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the third parties.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for eviction of the defendant No. 1 from the premises in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiffs contend that their grandmother was the owner of 5 Cuttah 8 chittaks land, as described in the schedule 'A' to the plaint. Their grandmother conferred 4 cuttah and 5 chittaks lands, as described in the schedule 'B' to the plaint as thika bemeyadi on lease in favour of one Kalipada Jana. Thereafter, the grandmother of the plaintiffs transferred the schedule 'A' property and other properties to her three sons, namely, Ganesh, Kartick and Parbati Charan, the predecessors -in -interest of the plaintiffs. The transfer was made by virtue of a deed of sale in 1937. Thus, the predecessors -in -interest of the plaintiffs became the joint owners of the said property absolutely and they became the intermediaries in respect of the said Kalipada Jana who paid khajna to them without any objection whatsoever. Thereafter, the Kalipada Jana transferred his tenancy to one of Jasoda Bala Ghosh in 1945 not seeking any permission from the predecessors -in -interest of the plaintiffs. Then, the defendant No. 1 approached predecessors -in -interest of the plaintiffs for payment of arrears of rent and the current annual rent on the basis of deeds of transfer and asked them to attorn its tenancy. The defendant No. 1 paid rents to the predecessors -in -interest to the plaintiffs till 1979. Thereafter, it stopped payment. In the meantime, one Raj Kumar Mukherjee claiming to be a sub -tenant under the defendant No. 1 was raising construction over a portion of the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent notice to the defendant No. 1 on March 19, 2009 determining the Bemeyadi lease and intended to take possession of the leasehold property. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit for the reliefs as stated above.
(3.) The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 entered appearance in the suit. Subsequently, the defendant Nos. 3 & 4 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. praying for adding them as defendants in the suit. That application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved this application has been filed by the plaintiffs.;