Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 30, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 5th Court at Alipore, in Title Suit no.279 of 2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated August 30, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit no.14 of 2002. Let us consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) According to the appellants the original owner, Harendra Lal Saha had dedicated the suit property to a deity and as the sole trustee inducted their predecessor, Baidyanath Halui as a tenant in respect of the suit property. After the death of the settlor the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the present trustees of the trust. The appellants further alleged that with the death of the said predecessor, they are the tenants in respect of the suit property under the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The appellants filed the suit, being Title Suit no.14 of 2002, claiming declarations that the order dated September 22, 1999 passed by the learned District Judge, at Alipore, South 24- Parganas, under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act allowing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant a long term lease of the suit property is vitiated by misrepresentation of facts, undue influence, fraud and beyond sanction that the deed of lease dated October 11, 1993 executed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the respondent no. 1 , in respect of the suit property is also vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation of facts, the same is of no effect and that by virtue of the lease deed dated October 11, 1993 the respondent no.1 has not acquired any right, title or interest to terminate their tenancy in respect of the suit property. In the suit, the appellants further claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent nos.1 from initiating any legal proceeding seeking their eviction from the suit property.
(3.) Admittedly, by an order dated September 22, 1993 passed in Misc. Case no.342 of 1993 the learned District Judge, Alipore, Sourth 24 Parganas had granted leave, under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant long term lease in respect of the suit property. Based on the said order, on October 11, 1993 the respondent nos. 2 and 3 granted a long term lease in respect of the suit property, in favour of the respondent no.1 and in the year 2002, the appellants filed the suit claiming aforementioned relief. The respondents contested the suit and in their respective written statements denied all the amterial allegations made in the plaint. After considering the pleadings of the respective parties the learned trial Judge framed following issues :- 1. Is the suit maintainable in its present for and prayer? 2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action to file the instant suit? 3. Is the plaintiff entitled to the decree as prayed for? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to any other relief?;