Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 78 decimal within district 24 Parganas (South) in Sonarpur, RS Dag no.2661 to 2664 and 2676 as described in schedule A to the plaint. Asia Heart Foundation was named defendant no.1. A partnership firm called BDCON, State and Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, were named proforma defendants. By order dated 24th August, 2016, director of Moz Export Private Limited was added as party-defendant. Plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by order dated 6th September, 2016. Plaintiffs are in appeal before us. In the appeal defendant no.1 is respondent no.1 and added defendant respondent no.2. The other respondents are the proforma defendants. CAN 9691 of 2016 is plaintiffs' application for injunction made in the appeal.
(2.) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior advocate appeared for plaintiffs and referred us to the plaint. He submitted, schedule A property, being the suit property, was conveyed by Ramakrishna Mission Belur Math to the said partnership firm by virtue of sale deeds registered with District Registrar, Alipore and recorded in Book no.1 serial nos.7331, 7333 and 7966 for the year 1989. Two persons representing themselves as sole partners of the said partnership firm had executed and registered a General Power of Attorney on 10th September, 2014 in favour of one Fajejul Islam Saiyad, authorising him, inter alia, to transfer the suit property. Plaintiffs purchased suit property from BDCON, the said partnership, through its constituted attorney by four deeds executed and registered in the year 2014 and got peaceful vacant physical possession thereof. They then got mutated their names in respect of suit property.
(3.) He submitted, on 16th July, 2016 persons claiming themselves to be men and agents of defendant no.1 tried to forcibly dispossess plaintiffs from suit property. They failed but disclosed they had purchased part of the suit property by deeds of 2015. Plaintiffs, going on information supplied by the said persons, applied and obtained certified copies of deeds showing defendant no.1 to have purchased land, as alleged ultimate transferee, from the said partnership. Such deeds have been described in schedule C of the plaint. They are sham, paper transactions, without consideration and manufactured collusively with ulterior motive to defraud plaintiffs as transferees of the said partnership. On 6th August, 2016 there was another attempt by defendant no.1 to dispossess plaintiffs, to forcibly and illegally take possession of suit property. Hence plaintiff's suit for declaration that they are absolute owners and possessors of suit property, that deeds mentioned in schedule C with all subsequent deeds are invalid and not binding on them, that defendant no.1 has not acquired any right, title, interest or possession in suit property on the basis of its alleged purchase and permanent injunction restraining said defendant from disturbing plaintiffs' peaceful possession in respect of suit property.;