G.C.De, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.95 passed by the learned Judge of the third Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1277 of 1984. By that judgment the plaintiff's suit was decreed and the reliefs sought for in the plaint were granted.
(2.) The plaintiff Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal instituted this suit praying for a declaration that he is one of the joint owners of the premises No. 33A, Ghosh Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises' for brevity) that the said property was purchased out of the joint family fund belonging to the joint family consisting of the plaintiff and his father (defendant No. 1) and two brothers (defendants Nos. 2 and 3), for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from proceeding further with the suit No. 1633 of 1982 and No. 325 of 1982 respectively pending before the learned Judge of the second Bench and the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Cause at Calcutta, and also for other reliefs. The plaintiff's case after amendment of the plaint on several occasions may be narrated as follows: About 55 years back the suit premises was taken on tenancy by Sitaram Shaw, grandfather of the plaintiff as 'Karta' of the joint Hindu Mitakshara family and he used to carry on business therein. The tenancy was transferred in the name of the defendant No. 1 during the lifetime of Sitaram. Sitaram died in 1962 and there-after, the family business was closed. But the joint family of the defendant No. 1 continued in the suit premises. In 1973 the suit premises was purchased in the name of the defendant No. 1 who was the 'Karta' of th joint Hindu Mitakshra family. As the defendant No. 1 had no income of his own, the plaintiff, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 contributed towards the consideration money for purchase of the suit premises and thus, the plaintiff and the defendants became the joint owners. But the defendants filed two suits before the second Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta for ejectment of the plaintiff from the rooms in his occupation and both the suits were registered as Ejectment Suit No. 1633 of 1982 and Ejectment Suit No. 1325 of 1982. Due to the institution of those ejectment suits, a shadow was cast on the right of ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and taking leave from the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta, the present suit has been instituted for declaration and injunction in the manner indicated hereinabove.
(3.) The defendant No. 1 Ramchandra Prosad @ Jaiswal who is the father of the plaintiff contested the suit after filing a written statement denying all the materials allegations made in the plaint. His specific case is that the he purchased the suit premises with his own money and became the sole owner of the same. It is also claimed that the plaintiff was occupying a portion of the suit premises as a licensee of the suit premises and that separate suits for eviction were filed against the plaintiff after revoking the licence in respect of those portions of the suit premises. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.;