Indrajit Chatterjee, J. - (1.) I am hearing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 14th August, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Jalpaiguri in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2013 and that court as per that order affirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalpaiguri passed in Title Suit No. 67 of 2012 dated 30th January, 2013 wherein the learned trial court was pleased to reject the prayer of the present petitioners as filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that on 05 -02 -1963, one Birendra Nath Singh @ Biren Singh Roy transferred 0.29 acres of land out of his total land measuring 0.63 acres which has been described in the schedule of the plaint of that Title Suit referred to above. Such transfer was made in favour of one Nar Bahadur Pradhan and after that transfer, Birendra Nath Singh remained in possession of 0.34 acres of the said land and he was in possession of the said property. After the death of Birendra Nath Singh @ Biren Singh Roy, ultimately the property came to the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 who got 50% of the share and the plaintiff No. 6, being Jagalal Roy got the rest 50% being the nephew of Birendra Nath Singh Roy. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 acquired 50% of the title by way of inheritance after the death of Birendra Nath Singh Roy and Saidey Roy. It is the further case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that they are in possession of the said property by paying taxes regularly in the office of the Revenue Inspector under the B.L. & L.R.O., Rajganj and that their property is in Mouza -Dabgram, Parganas -Baikunthapur, JL No. 2, Sheet No. 12 of R.S. Khatian No. 708, R.S. Plot No. 183, P.S. -Bhaiktinagar, District -Jailpaiguri, measuring -0.34 acre.
(3.) It is also the case of the present petitioners that the defendants approached the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 6 long time back to sell the scheduled property in their favour but as the price was not negotiable one the said prayer was refused. The present petitioners also came up with the fact that on 20 -02 -2012 at about 11 -00 a.m. the opposite party men tried to make construction over the same by encroaching on a portion of the petitioners' land. Thereafter, that Title Suit was filed and as per the order dated 14 -3 -2012 the plaintiffs got an ex parte order of injunction. Thereafter, the present opposite parties/defendants entered into appearance and the temporary injunction petition was heard in presence of other side and as per the order dated 30 -01 -2013, the said temporary injunction petition was dismissed. The present petitioners took up that matter before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri and the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 2013 which was transferred to the 4th Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Jalpaiguri and that Misc. Appeal was dismissed affirming the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) passed in that suit and against that order, the present petitioners being the plaintiffs in that title suit have approached this court.;