Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment/order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 86 of 1989 affirming the order of the learned Munsiff, 6th Court, Alipore whereby the petitioners' prayer for temporary injunction was rejected.
(2.) The plaintiff-petitioners after filing the Title Suit No. 51/98, inter alia, moved for ad interim injunction on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for restraining the defendants-opposite parties from interfering with and/or disturbing them from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It was contended before the trial Court that one Satish Chandra Mondal, who was their predecessor-in-interest took a loan of Rs. 150/- from Keshab Chandra Mondal and, accordingly, a deed of Kobala and Ekrarnama were executed in respect of the plot measuring an area of 401/2 decimals appertaining to J.L. No. 3, Mouza-Jothbhim, C.S. Khatian No. 224, C.S. Dag No. 31 on condition that on repayment of the said loan amount with interest the said Keshab Chandra Mondal would execute a deed of reconveyanace in favour of Satish Chandra Mondal. The petitioners further averred in their pleadings that Satish Chandra Mondal during his life time paid all the entire loan amount with interest to Keshab Chandra Mondal, but, in return Keshab Chandra Mondal did not execute a deed for reconveyance in favour of the vendor Satish Chandra Mondal. Sometime, thereafter, Satish Chandra Mondal died and the present plaintiffs became his legal heirs and succeeded all his properties including the suit land.
(3.) The present plaintiffs after the demise of Satish Chandra Mondal requested the defendants to execute and register a deed of reconveyance in terms of the undertaking given by Keshab Chandra Mondal. But, however, they avoided to execute such deed on one pretext or other. But, the petitioners, notwithstanding execution of such document claimed to have been in possession of the suit land. Therefore, they have claimed they are in possession adversely against the interest of the defendants.;