PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is filed against the Order No.1 dated April 19, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Contai in Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2013 thereby refusing the prayer for ad interim order of injunction. The plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners herein instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendants/opposite parties herein for declaration of title to the extent of half share of the 'Ka' schedule property by way of inheritance, permanent injunction and other reliefs before the learned Trial Judge. At the time of filing of the said suit, they prayed for temporary injunction along with a prayer for ad interim order of injunction. The learned Trial Judge granted ad interim order of injunction by way of status quo. But, while disposing of the application, the learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer for temporary injunction.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the plaintiffs preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2013. They also prayed ad interim order of injunction again and that prayer was refused by the First Appellate Court. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to get any kind of relief as prayed for in the application for temporary injunction. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that it is not in dispute that one Ghanashyam Pahari, since deceased, was the original owner of the 'Ka' schedule property. He left four sons, namely, Padmalochan, Baidyanath, Gobinda and Shibprasad. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Padmalochan and similarly, defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 are the descendants of Badiyanath. Gobinda died bachelor and his share devolved upon the rest heirs/descendants of Ghanashyam Pahari. Shibprasad had one son, namely, Debabrata and his wife was Sabitri. Debabrata died living his wife Sabitri, but they had no issue. After the death of Sabitri, the property originally inherited by Shibprasad devolved upon the heirs/descendants of Padmalochan and Baidyanath meaning thereby each branch of them had 50% share in the suit property.
(3.) ON the basis of that above contention, the plaintiffs have claimed declaration of title over half share of the suit property left by Sabitri. The defendants have denied such contentions of the plaintiffs. From the above analogy, it is evident that the plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners herein are the descendants of Padmalochan. Of course, the contesting defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 have denied such contention and that has to be considered at the time of trial.;