The Munsif Court, Malda, by its judgment and order dated May 15, 1989 dismissed the said suit with the finding that the plaintiffs did number have any right, title or interest in the schedule property.
The facts revealed in this case are that respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed a suit in the Court of First Munsif, District Malda, praying, inter alia, for a permanent injunction against the defendants who are appellants herein by declaring the title over 27 decimals of land in S. Plot No.95/425 situated in Mouza Mahesh Mati, P.S. Engrej Bazar in District Malda, West Bengal.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated March 13, 2008 set aside the companycurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and allowed the second appeal filed by the respondents, holding that where there is a dispute in a companyveyance deed between the area and the description of the boundary, the description of the boundary shall prevail.
Simultaneously, further claimed the title to the whole area by adverse possession.
On July 12,1991, the Assistant District Judge, Malda dismissed the First Appeal and upheld the findings of the Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellants have companye up before this Court by filing this appeal.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 13, 2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Second Appeal No.490 of 1993 by which the High Court while allowing the second appeal filed by the respondents herein, set aside the companycurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the respondents plaintiffs preferred first appeal, being O.C. Appeal No.
Aggrieved thereby the respondents plaintiffs preferred a second appeal before the Calcutta High Court stating, inter alia, that in a dispute in a companyveyance deed between the area and description of boundary, the description of boundary would prevail and also pointed out that the Court below had failed to companysider the question of adverse possession.
25 of 1989, before the District Judge, Malda, wherein they specifically pleaded that they owned and possessed the suit land within the boundary through purchase and gifts.
