JUDGMENT :

KAUSIK CHANDA, J

1. The present suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by one Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nandu Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes as the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff made out a case in his plaint that the suit property originally belonged to his late father Salik Ram and Salik Ram’s brother Sita Ram in equal share by virtue of a sale from one Sahdori Dasi in the year 1959. Sita Ram never possessed the suit property and all along he used to reside at his native village along with his other family members. The suit property all along was under the occupation of the plaintiff’s father, Salik Ram and his four sons. Salik Ram died in the year 1992 leaving his wife, plaintiff and three other sons. The other co-sharer of the property, namely Sita Ram, also died leaving behind his only son Brij Mohan. After the death of Salik Ram the plaintiff has been possessing and enjoying the suit property absolutely. Brij Mohan was never in possession over the suit premises and he used to reside in his native village. There are total seventeen tile shed rooms in the suit premises, out of which Sk. Golam Lalchand is a tenant in respect of one room, which has been described in the Schedule-B to the plaint. There are also other tenants who have been inducted in respect of other rooms. Golam and his father-in-law had made attempts to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of suit property of the plaintiff and attempted to erect a wall by blocking the common passage. The plaintiff, being so informed, rushed to the suit property when it was disclosed by Golam and his father-in-law that Golam had purchased the entire suit property from Brij Mohan. The plaintiff in his plaint contended that Brij Mohan cannot acquire an absolute right over the suit property and as such he could not transfer the same or deliver possession of the same to Golam. The plaintiff perceived a threat to his title and possession over the suit property and filed the suit.

3. In the said suit, Golam and his father-in-law have been impleaded as defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Brij Mohan has been impleaded as defendant no. 3. Three other sons of Salik Ram have been impleaded as proforma defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6.

4. The plaintiff has prayed, inter-alia, for a decree of declaration that defendant no. 1 could not have acquired any right, title and interest by virtue of the Deed of Sale being, Exhibit-F and for an injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 2 from making any type of obstruction in exercising the lawful right of the plaintiff as landlord and collecting the rent from the tenants who have been lawfully inducted by the plaintiff.

5. The suit was contested by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 by filing a joint written statement. Defendant no. 3 also filed a separate written statement supporting the stand of the defendant nos. 1 and 2. The defendants made out a common case that after the deaths of Sita Ram and Salik Ram, the suit property was mutually partitioned by a family settlement amongst their respective legal heirs. The suit property in its entirety was allotted in favour of the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff, defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 and defendant no. 3 inscribed their signatures on the said family settlement. The plaintiff, in particular, relinquished his claim over the suit property on the basis of the said family settlement. Thus, being the absolute owner of the suit property, defendant no. 3 by way of a sale deed, executed on May 19, 2006, sold and delivered the possession of the suit property in favour of the defendant no. 1, who was under constructive possession over the suit property.

6. The said sale deed in the course of hearing was adduced in evidence as Exhibit-F.

7. The trial Court disbelieved the story of family settlement as pleaded in the written statements as the said document of family settlement, alleged to have been inscribed by the parties to the suit, and the same was not produced or proved. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit prim