P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance, or, in the alternative for what in substance appears to be permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The claim for specific performance was clearly barred by limitation and it was not pressed by the plaintiffs after its dismissal by the trial Court on that ground. The plaintiffs' alternative claim, however, was decreed by the learned Munsif under Section 53a, Act, and the defendants were held debarred and they were actually restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit properties and/or from exercising any rights in respect thereof which might affect such possession. That decision, however, was eventually set aside by the lower appellate Court which refused to apply Section 53a to the facts of this case and, the plaintiffs' suit having been dismissed, they have now come up to this Court in Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned Munsif described the suit as rather of an unusual type. It followed as a sequel to another suit and, indeed, the litigation between the parties started sometime in 1938 and had a long and c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document