- (1.) In the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Order No. 29 dated 18.03.2008 and order No. 39 dated 12.02.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas in T. S. No. 12 of 2005 have been assailed.
(2.) The Plaintiff Petitioner contends that he filed the Title Suit No. 12 of 2005 against the Defendant Respondents with the following averment which is only relevant for my adjudication: a) That one Amiruddi Haider @ Amiruddin Haider was the owner of the property measuring an area of 0.13 decimals of land in C. S. Khatian No. 67, R. S. Khatian No. 265, C. S. Dag No. 447 of Mouja Teghori, J L No. 52, Ward No. 7 holding No. 1967, L R Dag No. 479 P. S. Sonarpur, District South 24-Parganas within Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality; b) That the said Amiruddin Haider died on 17.8.1960 leaving behind his widow Hayatan Bibi and one daughter Anefa Bibi as his legal heirs and representatives who have inherited the said property. The said widow Hayatan Bibi died on 17.9.1999 and after her death the only daughter Anefa Bibi became the absolute owner of the said property in question. The said Anifa Bibi all along possessed and held the said land as the exclusive legal heir and successor of her deceased father Amiruddin Haider and deceased mother Hayatan Bibi. The said Anefa Bibi all along used to pay the relevant rent and taxes in respect of the said property although the name of her father still remains in the record-of-rights; etc. The prayer of the Plaintiff/ Petitioner in the said T. S. No. 12 of 2005 was as follows: a) That the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property; b) For a declaration that the Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 as well as 8 have no legal right interest or title in respect of the schedule property and the impugned forged deed being No. 1-3109 dated 17.4.1961 as if executed by Amiruddin Haider who died on 17.08.1960 in favour of Defendant No. 3 to 5's firm has no force or hold any legality over the suit land the said Deeds to be declared as void deed, and the subsequent deed as deed (a) being No. 3800 dated 4.10.2001 in favour of Defendant No. 6 and 7; (b) the deed of gift dated 19.11.2001 in favour of Defendant No. 8's office being No. 3383 made on the said forged deed being No. 1-3109 are not binding upon the Plaintiffs purchased property i.e. the suit property. c) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their men and agents from changing the nature and character of the suit property and from carrying any construction or boundary fence in any part of the schedule property until and unless the validity of the illegal forged deed is tried by the Court of Law. d) All costs of unit. e) For such other relief and reliefs the Plaintiff is entitled to under law and equity.
(3.) While admitting the said plaint on 25.01.2005 the learned Court below was pleased to hold that Court fees paid is sufficient, requisites put in and so directed to issue summons upon the Defendants through Court as well as by registered post with acknowledgement due. Thereafter due notice was served upon all the Defendants and while considering an application for further hearing of temporary injunction petition the learned Trial Court on his own accord passed Order No. 22 dated 17.04.2007 in the following terms: At this stage on perusal of the plaint it appears to me that this is a suit for declaration of a deed as void and for permanent injunction. It reveals that the instant suit is being filed valued at Rs. 100/- and Court fees paid accordingly. However, I think for determination of proper Court-fees and valuation of the suit a hearing is necessary. Accordingly, temporary injunction petition hearing is adjourned today. Fix 28.5.07 for hearing in respect of valuation & Court-fees.;