A suit for declaration of title and injunction is not maintainable if there is no prayer for recovery of possession and the plaintiffs have not made any prayer for consequential relief for recovery of possession.

TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J.

This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has considered the relevant materials on record.

2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit being title suit No. 54 of 1985 against the defendants/respondents and such suit was placed for hearing before the learned Second Munsif, Baruipore.

3. The plaintiffs’ case was that 30 decimals of land being hal plot No. 490 of Mouza Ghasiara P.S. Sonarpur was recorded in the name of one Hriday Naskar to the extent of 8 annas share and in the balance of 8 annas share the names of Satish and Haran, 4 annas each, were recorded. The plaintiffs’ case was that Hriday’s 8 annas share was purchased by one Jadunath Sardar through auction sale held on 22.10.1925 in connection with a certain title execution case of the Court of learned First Munsif, Baruipore and the said Jadunath Sardar obtained physical possession of the purchased property. The plaintiffs’ case was that the said Jadunath Sardar on 18.01.1928 purchased the share of the said Satish and Haran Naskar by registered deed of conveyance and, thus, the said Jadunath Sardar became the exclusive owner of the said 30 decimals of land. The plaintiffs’ further case was that the suit property was erroneously recorded in the name of Hriday and others as the said Jadunath Sardar could not remain present at the time of district settlement operation and such erroneously prepared record-of-right has been finally published. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was again erroneously recorded in the name of Sitanath Poddar and others at the time of R.S. settlement operation and, according to the plaintiffs, the records of right have been also erroneously prepared subsequently. The plaintiffs’ case was that the said Jadunath Sardar died and his son Dhanapati also died leaving behind his two sons, that is, Prasanna and Gajendra, who made an amicable partition and occupied their respective allotments and, thus Gajendra became exclusive owner of the suit property and started possessing the same. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants on 05.01.1985 threatened to take forcible possession of the suit property which prompted the plaintiffs to file the aforesaid suit for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit property and permanent injunction etc.

4. The defendant Nos. 1, 2,4,5,6 and 7 contested the said suit by filing written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest including possession of the suit property. According to the defendants, one Krittiwas Poddar and Sitanath Poddar were owners and occupiers of the suit property and after their death their heirs came into possession of the suit property. According to the said defendants, neither Hriday nor Satish and Haran had any right to transfer and the allegation made by the plaintiffs regarding auction purchase and also purchase by Jadunath from Satish and Haran are not true. According to the defendants, they have been possessing the suit property openly and adversely and without any interruption to the knowledge of the plaintiffs for a period exceeding 12 years and the defendants have secured an indefeasible right in respect of the suit property.

5. The said suit came up for hearing and the learned Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 21st March, 1997 dismissed the said suit after hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides. Challenging such judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court the plaintiffs/appellants filed title appeal No. 48 of 1997 which was placed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipore and the learned First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th December, 2001 dismissed the said title appeal.

6. Challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court the plaintiffs/appellants have filed the