Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this application as Order passed on 20th June, 1988 by the Learned Munsif, Additional Court, Srirampur, in Title Suit No. 9 of 1988 has been challenged.
(2.) The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 in the First Court of Munsif, Srirampur being Title Suit No. 142 of 1984 and the said Suit, subsequently on transfer to the Court of the Learned Additional Munsif, was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 9 of 1988.
(3.) The case of plaintiff petitioner as described in paragraph 2 of the petition is as follows: (a) That the petitioner was the owner of the property mentioned and fully described in the Schedule 'A' to the plaint and he got the property by way of inheritance. (b) That the plaintiff/petitioner was the recorded tenant on demise of late Ramprasad Banerjee (Bhattacharjee) the Plaintiff/petitioner as his sole heir inherited the scheduled property and both in B.S. records-of-Rights the name of the father of the plaintiff/petitioner has been duly recorded. (c) That the plaintiff/petitioner was/is in peaceful possession of the suit property for long year, but his possession was/is being disturbed by the Defendants/Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3. (d) That the defendants/opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 with some other boys and/or some other members of the alleged club was trying to play over the suit property. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 wanted to us the same as their play-ground of the alleged club and they were canvassing that the suit properties were no man's land and the plaintiff/ petitioner was not the owner of the same. (e) That the defendants/opposite parties No. 1 to 3 had no right and/or locus standi, interest in the suit property and they had no right to canvas that the Suit properties were no man's land; nor they had any right to dispossess the plaintiff/petitioner; nor they had any right to do anything prejudicial to the interest of the parties; nor the defendants/opposite parties had any right to obstruct the plaintiff/petitioner's peaceful enjoyment of the Suit property.;