The plaintiff was number entitled to get a decree as prayed for.
Subsequently, by an amicable partition between the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.3, plaintiff got B schedule property, that is to say, 6 decimals of land at the southern portion of the aforesaid suit property and proforma defendant No.3 got 6 decimals of land at the numberthern portion of the suit plot.
It was the further allegation of the companytesting defendants that the total land were amicably partitioned amongst themselves by the intervention of the members of the gram Panchayat as per the family arrangements.
In that background, the plaintiff filed the suit originally for permanent injunction against defendants 1 and 2.
B schedule of land was lying vacant.
Plaintiff was in possession of that land by cultivation.
The first Appellate Court has also upheld the view of the trial Court.
Learned Munsiff formulated several issues and relied on certified companyy of the decreed suit.
While they were in joint possession in same for companyvenience of possession they made an amicable partition amongst themselves and in that partition plaintiff and proforma defendant No.3 got 12 decimals of land in plot No.223/455 which was described in schedule A of the plaint.
The parties were separated in respect of the possession of the land in dispute and the companytesting defendants after getting the plan sanctioned, companystructed the building over the allotted land.
In this background, they denied the allegation of dispossession from the suit property made by the plaintiff.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 threatened the possession of the plaintiff.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 companytested the suit by a written statement alleging inter alia that the plaintiff was all along since the date of partition remained separately in his own allotted land and the defendants also were possessing the land and structure according to their own share on the portion allotted to them.
Subsequently, it was companytended by the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 and 2 dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiff prayed for recovery of possession of such property.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Thereafter, as per the case of the plaintiff by way of an oral exchange, defendants 1 and 2 got C schedule property from proforma defendant No.3 and they started residing thereon by companystructing house.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the Second Appeal filed by the respondents under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession and also of permanent injunction companytending inter alia that the suit land in R.S. Khatian No.31 of Mouza Chandibera under P.S. Rajarhat originally belonged to Ananda Chandra Mondal, Mubir Mondal, Bhutnath Mondal, Gadadhar Mondal, Mathar Mondal, Kartick Mondal, Haradhan Chandra Ghosh and Bishwanath Ghosh.
In this way, plaintiff got B schedule of land and C schedule of land fell in the share of pro defendant number3.
