Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) The appellants assail a judgment of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court, Baruipur, decided on 5th December, 2016 by which their prayer for temporary injunction for maintaining status quo over the property involved in the suit has been refused. Complaint of the appellants is primarily directed against the respondent no.3. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit in connection with which the injunction application was taken out, and the respondent no.3 has been impleaded as the third defendant in the suit. In this judgment, however, we shall refer to the appellants and respondents as plaintiffs and defendants only, in the manner they are described in the suit for the sake of convenience. The suit-property comprises of 24 decimals of land in C.S. and R.S. dag no. 26 within C.S. and R.S. khatian no. 1292, mouza-Barhans Fartabad under Sonarpur police station in the district of 24 parganas south. The defendant no. 3 before the Trial Court claimed to have had acquired right title and interest in respect of the suit-property from its lawful owners. On the other hand, plaintiffs' contention is that the third defendant is trying to appropriate the suit property through collusion and fake transactions and making illegal construction thereon.
(2.) As regards source of ownership or title of the suit property, it appears that one Rakhal Das Nandy and certain other individuals had dispute with their tenants, and the former set of individuals came into possession of the suit land in pursuance of a decree passed in a civil suit instituted in the year 1931. One Harimohan Nandy, through whom the plaintiffs stake their claim in the main suit from which this appeal originates appears to have had become absolute owner of the suit property, as successor of legal heirs of Rakhal Das Nandy and others. Admitted position is that one Gour Mohan Banerjee came into possession of the suit land sometime during the fifth decade of the last century. There is dispute, however, over the manner in which he came into possession thereof and the extent of his possession. In the finally published record of rights, copy of which has been produced before us, under the heading nature of possessory right in the remarks column his name is shown as "Jordang" since 1363 of the Bengali calendar, which would correspond to 1956-57 C.E. as per the Gregorian calendar. The term "Jordang" implies forcible occupier. Harimohan was described in the same document as a "Dakhalkar", implying his status was that of a non-agricultural tenant.
(3.) The plaintiffs in the suit have claimed that said Harimohan died intestate on 18th May, 2016, leaving behind his two sons, Salien Nandy and Dwijen Nandy (impleaded as the first and second defendants in the suit), as also two married draughts, Rama Das and Rima Chandra. As per the pleadings in the plaint, said Harimohan had another daughter, Angurbala, who predeceased him. Said Angurbala had a son, Ajit Das. Ajit also had passed away, leaving behind his widow, Pali Das, and son Subir Das. In this respect, the plaintiffs sought to rely on a death certificate of Harimohan Nandy issued by the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, but it has been pointed out on behalf of the third defendant that such death certificate has subsequently been cancelled. The said defendant has also referred to a communication from Prodhan, Bodra Gram Panchayat, in which the said authority has denied issuing any certificate to the effect that Harimohan was cremated at the burning ghat of Bodra village.;