- (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barasat, in Title Appeal No. 1092 of 1978, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, barasat, in Title Suit" No. 445 of 1974 and dismissing the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit premises and for injunction.
(3.) IT was the case of the plaintiffs in brief that the suit premises consisting of it rooms belonged to some Muslim who deserted the suit property in 1950 following the communal disturbance. The plaintiffs coming over to India as refugees from the erstwhile East pakistan, occupied the suit property forciably in 1960 finding the same vacant. In 1954 the plaintiffs permitted one Sachindra Rakshit to occupy three "rooms in the eastern portion of the surpremisos. The heirs of Sachindra Rakshit were still in occupation of the said rooms. In 1951 the owner Mahaboob filed the case no. 1066 of 1951 before the competent authority against the plaintiffs under the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised Occupation of Land Act, 1951 (but became unsuccessful. The plaintiffs were possessing the suit property,, openly, uninterruptedly and adversely to the interest of the rightful owner since 1950. Mahaboob being unsuccessful in that eviction case, sold the suit property to Lachiram Kurmi in 1959. Lachi-ram tried to forcibly disposses the plaintiffs from the suit property but foiled. Lachiram then sold the suit property to Monoharlal Agarwalla in 1962. Manoharlal also tried to forcibly disposses the plaintiffs from the suit property but failed. Monoharlal filed Title Suit No. 439 of 1969 against the plaintiffs far their eviction from the portion of the suit property which was in actual possession of the plaintiffs on the allegation that the plaintiffs were inducted as tenants by him in 1964 and that the tenancy of the plaintiffs was terminated by the service of notice to quit on. the ground of default in payment of rent. The plaintiffs contested the said suit denying the relationship of land -. lord and tenant and asserting their title to the suit property by adverse possession since 1950. The said suit was dismissed and the dismissal was upheld by the appellate court. In appeal Ghasilal and others as the heirs of Monoharlal were appellants. The defendant purchased the suit property from Ghasilal and others on 4-8-74 and forcibly got a blank paper signed by three of the plaintiffs on 11. 8. 74. The plaintiffs apprehended that the defendant might create any document by that signed blank paper. The plaintiffs lodged diary With the police Station on 11. 8. 74 regarding the incident and subsequently filed also a criminal case under section 107 Cr. P. C. against the defendant. The defendant threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess from the suit land. Hence this suit was instituted.;