Subrata Talukdar, J.

Both the above noted revisional applications being CO 1927 of 2012 with CO 2125 of 2005 are taken up for analogous hearing.

Sri Mrinal Kanti Das, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in CO 2125 of 2012 submits that the order dated 19th March, 2012 passed by the Ld. 8th Civil Court (Senior Division), Alipore in Title Suit No. 44 of 1991 is under challenge in both the revisional applications.

In CO 1927 of 2012, the opposite party (OP) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short BPCL) is the petitioner. BPCL is also the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 44 of 1991 and the opposite party in CO 2125 of 2012.

Sri Das’s clients are the petitioners in CO 2125 of 2012 and the defendants in Title Suit No. 44 of 1991 as well as the opposite parties in CO 1927 of 2012.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

a) That the plaintiff/BPCL filed TS 44 of 1991 for declaration, injunction, recovery of possession and damages before the Ld. 8th Asst. District Court at Alipore praying, inter alia as follows:-

“a) For declaration that the plaintiff is a monthly thika tenant in respect of the suit property, land under the Government of West Bengal or in the alternative for a declaration that the plaintiff is a monthly tenant in respect of the suit land under the defendant nos. 1 to 7, their successors-in-interest or assignees, i.e. the defendant nos. 8 to 10.

b) for a declaration that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 57 of 1957 of Ld. 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge at Alipore is not binding upon the plaintiff and for a further declaration that the defendants were not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property in basis of the said decree passed in Title Suit No. 57 of 1979 of 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge at Alipore.

c) for a declaration for a decree for recovery of the suit property.

d) for a declaration of a decree for damages of Rs. 50, 000/- as claimed in the Schedule “B” below.

e) for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the suit property in any way.

f) for all costs of the suit.

g) for any other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to in law and equity.”

b) The defendants contested the said suit by filling written statement denying that the plaintiff/BPCL has been in occupation of the suit property as a monthly tenant or that the alleged suit property was vested with the Government of West Bengal on promulgation of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 or that the plaintiff/BPCL has become a direct tenant under the Government of West Bengal.

c) According to the defendants, one Provash Chandra Mitra was the original owner of the suit property since 26th of May 1923. The said Pravash Chandra Mitra leased out the suit property to the erstwhile Burmah Shell Storage and Distribution Company with effect from 1st September, 1930 with a renewal clause.

During subsistence of the lease the said P.C. Mitra sold the property to one Smt. Narayani Dasi. The said Narayani Dasi had mortgaged the suit property in favour of one Bharat Insurance Company on 25th March, 1937.

d) The said Bharat Insurance Company filed a mortgage suit against Narayani Dasi being Title Suit No. 73 of 1939 and the suit was decreed. The decree of mortgage was put into execution in Title Execution Case No. 6 of 1940 and the present plaintiff, BPCL purchased the suit property in auction. However, such purchase was limited to the life interest of the said Narayani Dasi.

e) The judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 73 of 1939 was challenged by the reversioners Lilabati Dasi (since deceased) and Smt. Lajjyabati Dasi (being daughter of Narayani Dasi) by filing Title Suit No. 8 of 1941 praying, inter alia for a declaration that the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 73 of 1939 is not binding upon them as reversioners and the mortgage/decree holder is entitled to only enjoy the property till the lifetime of the said