Bimalendra Nath Maitra, J. - (1.) The plaintiff has alleged that he took a permanent lease of the disputed premises from defendant No. 4, Messrs. Suburban Co-operative Society Ltd., by a registered lease dated 7.3.1934. Defendant No, 2 took another lease from defendant No. 4. Defendants premises No. 78 is to the contiguous south of the Plaintiff's premises No. 84. Defendant No. 1 has transferred a portion of the land to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. AH the defendants acted in concert and excavated a portion of their land within 4 feet from the common boundary on 15.9. 1960 and collected some building materials with the object of constructing a latrine thereon. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the deed of lease, the defendants are not entitled to erect any construction within 10 feet of the common boundary. The alleged construction would be a source of nuisance and a hazard to health. Hence the suit for a permanent injunction.
(2.) Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement. A separate written statement was filed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Additional written statments were also filed. It has been alleged that the father of defendant No. 1 took a registered lease on 14.6. 1933. Defendant No. 1 and his brothers made a gift of a portion of the property on 21.4. 1953 to their sister, defendant No. 3. The plaintiff has no locus standi to bring the suit. The alleged privity of contract was between the lessor and the lessee and the plaintiff cannot enforce the same. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of party.
(3.) The learned Munsif accepted the plaintiff's version and decreed the suit. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal and lost the same. Thereafter the present appeal has been filed.;