JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1.The instant appeal arises from the Order no. 11 dated 13.10.2023 passed in T.S. no. 95 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri by which an application for injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on contest. At the time of admission of the instant appeal, an ad interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from carrying on any further construction and/or creating any third party interest and/or encumbrance on the suit property also from transferring and/or alienating of the suit property in favour of a third party was passed.

2. The salient facts required for the purpose of determining the point urged in the instant appeal are adumbrated hereinafter. One Rajani kanta Mukherjee, since deceased was the owner of large tract of land situated at Rajani Bagan, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri and left behind him surviving two sons namely, Durgapada Mukherjee and Babu AnandaKanta Mookerjee upon his death. A family settlement was entered into between the aforesaid two sons whereby and whereunder both the sons have decided to divide the joint property to the exclusion of other. It is undisputed that one of the son namely Durgapada Mukherjee was exclusively allotted the property being the subject matter of the instant suit. The said Durgapada Mukherjee subsequently executed a lease in favour of the Respondent no. 1 which was duly registered on 4^th June, 1947 for a period of 9 years. The demised property is, in effect, the subject matter of the dispute in the suit instituted by the appellants before the Trial Court. Undisputedly, after the expiration of the period of lease, it was neither extended nor renewed by the said owner but the lessee remained in possession all along. The said Durgapada Mukherjee subsequently died on 28^th January, 1964 leaving behind him surviving his widow, three sons and one daughter. There has been a several transactions amongst the heirs of the said Durgapada Mukherjee which we are not concerned with. However, the appellants being the successors of the said original owner has filed the suit for declaration of the title and permanent injunction. The salient facts which led to an injunction being sought in the instant suit pertains to the incident when the respondent demolished the old structure and attempted to make construction at the demised land upon entering a Joint Venture Development Agreement with the Respondent no. 7. It is a specific stand of the appellant that they are owner of the subject property by virtue of an inheritance from the admitted owner and mere possession of the Defendant no. 2-6, does not create any indefeasible right, title and interest in respect threreof. On the conspectus of the aforesaid fact, an application for temporary injunction was filed restraining the respondents from dealing with and/or disposing of and/or alienating or creating a third party interest in respect of the suit property and also from changing the nature and character thereof. The contesting defendants admitted the factum of the suit property having demised on the strength of a deed of lease for a period of 9 years but took a shelter under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 to the extent that after the promulgation of the said Act, the right of the intermediary vested with the State and, therefore, the tenancy of the said defendants was diverted under the State. In other words, it is contended that the defendants are the tenant under the State and the plaintiff/appellant have no semblance of right, title and interest therein. It is a specific stand of the contesting defendants that the original owner namely Durgapada Mukherjee was aware that by virtue of coming in force of the said Act of 1953, the land was vested with the State and, in fact, a notice was also issued by the Revenue Officer under Section 44(2) of the said Act. It is further stated in the opposition that the said original owner subseque