MUKHERJEE, J.

(1.) This is an appeal against Order No. 29 dated September 26,2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore, South 24-Paraganas, in Title Suit No. 14 of 2008, thereby rejecting an application for temporary injunction filed in connection with the said suit.

(2.) The suit was filed, inter alia, for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner in respect of the suit property, which was purchased by the plaintiff in terms of two deeds of conveyance and a deed of declaration dated July 24, 2007, August 16, 2007 and January 24, 2008 for which the plaintiff paid necessary consideration.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the property originally belonged to Burdwan Raj Estate, which executed a Bandobastnama in favour of the defendants No. 2 to 7 in respect of the suit property. By virtue of the said Bandobastnama, the defendants No. 2 to 7 became the raiyats and their names have been mutated in the records of the authorities concerned,

(4.) The defendants No. 2 to 7, in their turn, gave an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant No.1, namely, Amit Kumar Mitra, empowering him to deal with the property- in- suit. Amit Kumar Mitra transferred the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff. After purchasing the suit property, the plaintiff noticed that some constructions were going on in the suit promises and, as such, to protect the interest of the plaintiff, the suit was instituted and a prayer for injunction was made.

(5.) It is, however, pertinent to note that, although, the plaintiff paid Rs. 26,02,00,000/-(Rupees twenty six crore two lakh) only to the said defendant No.1, but, the possession has never been handed over to it.

(6.) The defendant No.1 filed a written objection, but he chose not to appear before the Court below. The defendants No.2 and 7, jointly, filed a written objection alleging that they did not execute any Power of Attorney empowering the said Amit Kumar Mitra to transfer, alienate and/or encumber the property- in-suit in favour of the plaintiff or any other person whatsoever.

(7.) It seems that the defendants No.2 to 7 are now divided house. The defendants No. 3 to 6, however, filed a supplementary written objection or an independent written objection against the application for temporary injunction, where they admitted that they executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the said Amit Kumar Mitra and received a sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crore) only.

(8.) Neither in the written objections of the defendant No.1 nor of the defendants No. 2 to 7, there was any indication that the possession of the suit property was ever handed over to the plaintiff.

(9.) The stand taken by the defendant No. 8, in its written objection to the application for temporary injunction, was that a portion of the property was acquired by the State of West Bengal under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The acquired portion was 2.71 acres. The Government of West Bengal has settled that acquired portion of land in favour of the defendant No. 8. The defendant No. 8 acquired some other adjacent properties and having obtained sanction from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation started to construct the Alipore Institute of Management and Technology. The defendant No. 8 contended that they were making construction in their acquired portion and, as such, the order of injunction of any kind would operate against them harshly.

(10.) The defendants No. 9,10 and 11 were added subsequently by an order dated March 19, 2008, passed by the learned Trial Judge. The added defendants, also, filed their written objection and asserted that the Burdwan Raj Estate was the actual owner excepting the portion of land that has been acquired by the Government of West Bengal under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. They, further, asserted that no Bandobastnama was ever created in favour of the defendants No. 2 to 7 and, therefore, they have no occasion