Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the Order No.76 dated January 16, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No.150 of 2000 thereby allowing the defendant no.4 to repair the Schedule 'B' property as described in the application at his own cost without changing the nature and character of the property. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. The plaintiffs / petitioners herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.150 of 2000 against the defendants / opposite parties for declaration that a certain deed of declaration executed by defendant no.2 in 1999 is void, invalid, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs, for further declaration that the deed of conveyance executed by the defendant no.s 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the defendant no.4 executed in the year 1999 is void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs.
(2.) THE plaintiffs have contended in the plaint that they purchased the suit property by a registered deed of sale in 1997 from the vendors of the defendant no.s 1, 2 and 3 and that after purchase they took necessary steps for mutation and other steps. A dispute cropped up over the right, title and interest on the suit property. In the mean time, the defendant no.4 has prayed for repair of the suit premises as indicated above. That application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiffs. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be supported.
(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, it is found, prima facie, that the plaintiffs' deed in respect of the suit property being of the year 1997 is prior to the deed executed by the defendant no.s 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the defendant no.4 in the year 1999. Another deed of rectification was also executed by the defendant no.2.;