The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of making out a prima facie case for granting an injunction/stay of eviction in thika tenancy disputes. The court emphasized the interpretation of the legal provisions and the executing court's role in resolving such disputes.

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred against an order dated May 8, 2017 passed by the executing court, dismissing the petitioner's application for injunction made in connection with an application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 773 of 2010.

2. The petitioner resisted a decree passed against one Krishna Gopal Mondal, being the son of late Balahari Mondal, in favour of the Opposite Party nos. 1 to 8.

3. The admitted facts of the case are as follows:

One Maulvi Marful Huq was the original owner of the suit property. The said Marful gave leases in respect of the said property to one Ramdas and one Phani Bhusan Mondal. Subsequently, Phani Bhusan Mondal transferred his interest to Ramdas, thereby rendering Ramdas the sole lessee in respect of the suit property.

The said lease in favour of Ramdas was described to be a yearly lease and executed by a kabuliyat dated October 29, 1913. Thereafter a fresh lease was executed in similar tune on April 16, 1916.

Ram Das built structures, both pucca and kutcha, on the said property, as per permission granted in the kabuliyats. Such structures were made primarily for the purpose of running a rice mill.

Thereafter, one Kalipada Sardar obtained a money decree against the said Ramdas. Such decree was put into execution and Kalipada himself purchased the rights of Ramdas in respect of the suit property in an auction sale in connection with the resultant execution proceedings.

4. Subsequently, one Balahari Mondal purchased the said interests in the property from Kalipada by a registered sale deed dated April 24, 1940.

5. Balahari, by a Will dated August 2, 1975, bequeathed the said property to the wives of his three brothers-in-law, namely, Durga, Nihari and Kanak.

6. Balahari died on March 20, 1975 and the said Will was probated.

7. Indira, that is, the present petitioner, claims by inheritance as the daughter of Nihari, after Nihari's demise.

8. On the other hand, the Opposite Party nos. 1 to 11 claim through a purchase from the grandson of Marful dated July 30, 1992.

9. It is relevant to mention that Balahari, at the time of his death, left Padmabati, his wife and daughter of Ramdas, and Krishna Gopal, his son, as his heirs and legal representatives.

10. Subsequently, the present Opposite Party nos. 1 to 8 filed an eviction suit against Krishna Gopal, who ultimately conceded the suit.

11. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that 'thika tenancy', under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, envisaged structures being erected and/or acquired by the 'thika tenants'. Section 11 of the said Act contained a bar regarding the devolution and transfer of such properties.

12. In the year 1953 the said bar, contained in Section 11, was omitted from the statute.

13. The bar, however, was re-introduced on and from November 2, 1981 under Section 6(3) of The Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. Learned Counsel submits that even if the devolution of interest by virtue of the Will of Balahari to Nihari and others was to be considered as a posthumous transfer of property, the same took effect on the death of Balahari on October 20, 1975, that is, at a point of time when the bar as to transfer was omitted (in 1953) and before it was reintroduced on November 2, 1981. Even the probate of the said Will was granted on September 9, 1980, that is, in the said interregnum.

14. It is thus submitted that the bequest in favour of the petitioner's mother Nihari and other legatees of Balahari by virtue of his Will was valid and the interest claimed by the petitioner by inheritance on the death of Nihari, one of the legatees, was sanctioned by law.

15. However, learned counsel for the petitioners argues, the purported sale dated July 30, 1992 by the grandsons of the original owner Marful in favour of the Opposite Party nos. 1 to 8 was invalid, being barred under Se