4.

Case:
Record of Court Proceedings Observation

North 24 PARGANASIN THE COURT OF: CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), BANGAON

Complaint Case No: 1254 of 2015

Sukumar Debnath...............,... Plaintiff

Versus
Jagadish Saha and others.............Defendants
Date of Hearing: 28.02.2020

Matter Fixed For:

And having stood for consideration to this day,the

court delivered the following judgment. SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION VALUED ATRs.100/.

Advocate Accompanied / Assistant:

Ld.Adv. Sukumar Debnath ..............on behalf

of the plaintiffLd.
Adv.Sanjoy Das.............on behalf of the
defendants
Observation Made:

The plaintiff’s case in a nutshell is thatoriginally

Nirjharini Mukherjee was theabsolute owner of the
suit property. He furtherstated that Nirjharini
Mukherjee transferred9.08 decimals of land in favor
of the plaintiffby registered sale deed dated
11.10.1991.Thereafter transferred the rest 2.55
decimalsof land in suit plot in favor of the
plaintiffby registered gift deed dated 13.12.1996.
sincethen plaintiff is in possession of the
11.63decimals of land in total in suit
plot.Plaintiff has also planted various
valuabletrees in the suit plot and is residing in
thesuit by building dwelling house, toilet,bathroom.
His name is also recorded in finallypublished record
of rights and he is alsopaying rent in respect of
the suit property.He further stated that the deeds
dated11.10.1991 and the 13.12.1996 has been
executedby power of attorney holder of
NirjhariniMukherjee namely Santosh Ghosh.
Plaintifffurther stated that on the adjacent
northernside of the suit plot, plot no. 922
issituated. Defendant residential house issituated
in plot no. 922. In the hand sketchgiven the
plaintiff in the plaint, plaintiffbrick built wall (
pillar) was there. But thesaid pillar was destroyed
at the time of flood.Because of financial difficulty
plaintifffailed to repair the said boundary
pillar.Defendant have no right title and interest
inthe suit property. When the plaintiff tried
torepair the pillar the defendants obstructed
himfrom doing the same and threatened theplaintiff
to forcibly occupy the 4 ft land Pages 2 of 13
situated on the suit plot. Defendant have noright
title and interest in respect of the suitproperty as
well the boundary pillar. For thepurpose of
dispossessing the plaintiff, thedefendants are
threatening the plaintiff. Plaintiff further states
that defendant hasno right to cause disturbance in
the peacefulpossession of the plaintiff in the
suitproperty. Defendant is trying to grab
theproperty belonging to the plaintiff. He is
alsothreatening the plaintiff with direconsequences.
The cause of action for instituting this suitarose
in the 03.03.2002. For that reason,plaintiff have
filed this suit permanentinjunction.

Things Learned:

laintiff. Thus, considering all of the above,I am of

the view that the plaintiff is notentitled to get
the decree of permanentinjunction against the
defendants. In this wayall the issues are discussed
and answered andas a result the suit fails.The suit
fails. Court fees are paid in proper.