Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) THE suit is for declaration and perpetual injunction.
(2.) THE plaintiffs claim that the original plaintiff No. 1 was in absolute control and management of two companies, namely, the New Red Bank Tea Estate Company Private Limited and Surendranagar Tea Estate Private Limited. The plaintiffs claim that the first defendant took over the control and management of the two companies wrongfully and illegally from the original plaintiff No. 1. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 had enjoyed credit facilities from the defendant No. 2. The original plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2 were the guarantors of such credit facilities. Title deeds of the tea estates of the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 and Dharanipur Tea Estate were kept as mortgage with the defendant No. 2. With the passage of time and the tea industry coming into an economic slump, the credit facilities enjoyed by the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 from the defendant No. 2 became bad. The original plaintiff No. 1 had explored various ways of repaying the defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 3 was a high official of the defendant No. 2. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had engineered and took over of the shares held by the original plaintiff No. 1 and the other plaintiffs in the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs complain that the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 coerced and exercised undue influence over the original plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2 to make them enter into two agreements on May 14, 1981 and May 31, 1981. By exercising undue influence and coercion the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had made the original plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 2 part with the shares held by them in the defendant Nos. 6 and 7. By this mechanism the management of the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 changed from the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 1, without any correspondent benefit or the premises made being fulfilled. All these had happened through a series of transactions on and from May 14, 1981. According to the plaintiffs, these transactions were brought about by the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by exercising undue influence and coercion on the original plaintiff No. 1 and the other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that all transactions made by the original plaintiff No. 1 and the other plaintiffs on and from May 14, 1981 in respect of the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. They seek consequential reliefs with regard thereto. The defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 are contesting the instant suit.
(3.) THE defendant No. 1 has denied exercising any undue influence or coercion on the original plaintiff No. 1 or any of the plaintiffs in relation to any of the transactions. The transactions alleged by the plaintiffs in respect of the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are admitted. The defendant No. 1 claims that no undue influence was exerted in arriving at the transactions on May 14, 1981 or subsequent thereto. It is contended that the transactions in question is not one single transaction but a series of transaction entered into between diverse persons. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 had approved of such transactions in their Board meetings.;