( 1 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that the three disputed plots belonged to pro forma defendant No. 2 who retained the same under the provisions of the West Bengal Acquisition Act. He paid licence fee of Rs. 300/- and on the 15th Sravan, 1375 B. S. , took a licence of that property for that year from Pro forma defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 came to catch fish from that pond, but he put up obstruction. Due to such threat, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for a permanent injunction on declaration that he is a licensee regarding that property in question under pro forma defendant No. 2.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 has filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs allegations. His defence is that out of the big plot No. 518, he took settlement of two bighas on the north east from pro forma defendant No. 2. He is in possession of that property. One Nitya Gopal Biswas took settlement of plot No. 293 and the area of the land taken settlement of by the latter from pro forma defendant No. 2 is 2. 72 acres. He is a bargadar of that land under Nitya Gopal.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif believed the plaintiff's version and decreed the suit. The defendant No. 1 file