- (1.) The plaintiff/State Government has filed this suit for a decree of declaration that the ex parte decree dated 22nd July, 1986 passed in Suit No. 367 of 1985 is void and/or voidable, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff, and further that the registered conveyance dated 10th January 1989 executed by the Registrar Original Side of this Court in favour of the Defendant No. 1 pursuant to this decree is void ab initio, illegal, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff and also delivery of and cancellation of the said conveyance. Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 (a), 1 (b), 1 (c), 1 (d) and 2 and each of them, their servants, agents, representatives and assignees from acting upon and/or giving effect, or relying on the said decree. The other incidental reliefs are also claimed. This suit was originally filed, seeking relief originally against one Radheshyam Agarwal, since deceased and predecessor-in-interest of the present defendant Nos. 1 (a)-1 (d).
(2.) The original plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree which is sought to be impugned here, for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the Sonali Tea Estate together with unexpired period of leasehold interest against the Great GopulpurTea Company Ltd., who was admittedly a lessee in respect of a plot of land suitable for tea plantation of an area of more than 1,000 acre from the plaintiff under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. This lease was granted and by registered instrument by the Secretary State for the Council of India in perpetuity in Form-C with an obligation for renewal on expiry of every 30 years, to one Bagrakote Tea Company Ltd. on or about 21st January 1925 with effect form 1st April 1924. The Original lessee, thus having acquired the land of the said Sonali Tea Estate set upon an establishment of a tea estate, which consisted of various movable and immovable properties. In terms of the lease deed the lessee was entitled to assign the leasehold interest unto and in favour of any person of its choice. Accordingly, the original lessee and/or owner of the Sonali Tea Estate duly and lawfully transferred all its assets and properties to the defendant No. 2 by registered conveyance. Thus the defendant No. 2 became the lessee of the land of the said tea estate till 31st March 1954, at that time the Sonali Tea Estate was described and/or known as Saogoan Tea Garden and/or estate. In the records of rights the defendant No. 2 was recorded as the subsequent transferee lessee. Thus the plaintiff recognized its right. In similar manner another tea estate was acquired by the defendant No. 2 and this tea estate was called as Rupali Tea Estate. The defendant No. 2 later mortgaged both the tea estate as security for repayment of loan obtained from United Bank of India (UBI). The defendant No. 2 could not pay off mortgage debt. The UBI filed a suit for recovery of money lent and advanced and also for enforcement of mortgage in the appropriate civil Court. In this mortgage suit by an interim measure the Court appointed a Receiver to run both the Tea Gardens. For quite several years these tea gardens and estates had been under control and possession of the Receiver. The Receiver duly appointed the original Defendant No. 1 Radheshyam as an agent to look after the affairs and running of the said Tea estates. The workers forming a Co-operative Society at one point of time tried to intermeddle and/or interfere with the running and affairs of the said tea estate, by the Receiver through the agent. So, there were disputes with regard to gaining control of the tea estate. The defendant No. 3 claims to be the office bearer of the Co-operative Society. Ultimately the Bank Suit was compromised by and between the defendant No. 2 and the said Bank, where by and whereunder the Rupali Tea Estate being one of the mortgaged properties was sold by the Court to third parties and the proceeds thereof was adjusted against the outstanding dues. The UBI accordingly released the Sonali Tea Estate from the encumbrance of mortgage in the records of right in the Government. The UBI was shown to be a mortgagee of the two tea estates. Since the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not in a position to run the Sonali Tea Estate they agreed to sell this tea estate along with lease hold interest in favour of the original defendant No. 1 by an agreement in writing. At the same time the defendant No. 1 was authorized to take physical control and possession of the tea estate by a Power of Attorney. The defendant No. 2 therefore, applied for permission to assign and/or transfer the leasehold interest in favour of the defendant No. 1. It is claimed in the written statement that plaintiff took conditional decision for granting permission on payment of outstanding dues in relation to the tax, cess, etc,
(3.) Meanwhile, the plaintiff/State tried to interfere with the possession and control of this tea estate by issuing a memo authorizing the defendant No. 3 herein to take charge and control of the tea estate. This action of the plaintiff/Government was challenged by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and this challenge ultimately succeeded.;