A.K.Mitra, J. - (1.)These two second appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment dated 30.6.1994 and decreed dated 7.7.1994 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court Alipore, Dist. 24 Parganas (South) in Title Appeal No. 87 of 1992 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 221 of 1981 and also the judgment and decree dated 13th June and 7th July, 1994 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 88/92 and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 252 of 1984.
(2.)Title Suit No. 221 of 1981 and Title Suit No. 252 of 1984 were taken up together for analogous hearing and the learned Munsif by a Single Judgment disposed of the two Title Suits. Accordingly, two appeals being 87/92 and 88/92 were preferred. The Appellate Court below also heard the two appeals analogously since the two appeals arising out of two suits were heard analogously and the Appellate Court below by a single judgment disposed of the two appeals mentioned above.
(3.)Let us take the case of Title Suit No. 221 of 1981 first. In this suit of 1981 the case as has been made out by the plaintiff is, inter alia, as follows: The suit land involves a brick-built structure in and over the land measuring an area of 3 kottachs and 5 chittacks and 39 square feet being the front portion of premises No. P-61, Dr. Sarat Banerjee Road, P.S.: Lake, Calcutta-29 which belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's name entered in the relevant Register of Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the plaintiff is the sole owner of the said premises and he was in exclusive possession. Initially, in this suit Sri B.N. Roy Chowdhury was the plaintiff and after his death he was substituted by Smt. Kabita Roy Chowdhury. Smt. Santi Devi Bajaj and Sri Nathmal Bajaj were the defendants (Nathmal Bajaj being the constituted attorney of Sm. Santi Devi Bajaj). It is the case as made out by the plaintiff that in or about the month of August 1964 the defendant No. 1, that is, Smt. Santi Devi Bajaj approached the plaintiff for sale of the front portion of the said premises No. P-61 at an agreed consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. The plaintiff was in urgent need of money and he took a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the defendant No. 1 and an agreement for sale was executed to that effect. The defendant No. 1 filed a suit, inter alia, for a decree for specific performance of contract for sale of the said premises being the suit premises herein. This suit was filed in the Original Side Jurisdiction of the High Court, Calcutta, being Suit No. 21 of 1965 filed on 5.1.1965. Santi Devi Bajaj obtained ex parte decree in the said suit on 14.1.1966. On 30.9.1966 a deed for sale was executed by he Registrar, High Court, Original Side, Calcutta on the basis of the decree passed in that case, that is, in Suit No. 21/65. The Defendant No. 1, however, did not get possession of the suit premises and this plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit property. The Defendant No. 1 thereafter, filed another suit on 24.7.1968 in the Original Side Jurisdiction of this High Court at Calcutta for cancellation of the conveyance dated 30.9.1966 and for passing a decree for Rs. 24,090.28. The said suit was numbered as 1880 of 1968 in the High Court at Calcutta. Thereafter, subsequently, the Defendant No. 1 applied for withdrawal of the suit and it was withdrawn. Therefore, no occasion did arise for the plaintiff to deliver possession of the said property to the Defendant No. 1 and the suit property remained as before in full enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff himself. After lapse of about 16 years from the date of the purported agreement and 14 years after so-called conveyance the plaintiff claimed that right, title and interest has been vested in the plaintiff by virtue of adverse possession. The Defendant No. 2 accompanied by some associates made a sudden attempt to take forcible possession of the said premises but they failed to succeed. This plaintiff is of uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than 12 years as 16 annas owner of the same. The plaintiff apprehended that the defendant will try to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises forcibly and as such he filed this Title suit No. 221/81 with the following prayers:
(a)For a declaration that the defendant has no right, title and interest in the suit property and their alleged right, has been barred by limitation and adverse possession;

(aa)For a further declaration that the purported conveyance dated 30.9.1966 are unenforceable non-est and ineffective on the basis of agreement for sale dated 5th August, 1964 and

(b)For a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from setting up any claim for any supposed right, title or interest in the suit property and from disturbing or interfering with or attempt into disturbed or interfere with the plaintiff's possession of the suit premises/properties;

(c)For costs of the suit;

(d)For such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled to in law and equity."

;