I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Late Arunendu Kishore Gupta @ Arun Kumar Gupta, the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners, instituted, as Plaintiff, Title Suit No. 179 of 1977, claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property and seeking a decree of eviction of the tenant, one Nirmalendu Chakraborty, on the ground that the said tenant was a defaulter in respect of payment of rent and that the said tenant had also sublet a part of the tenanted premises to one Swapan Saha, i.e., opposite party No. 1 herein. The suit having been decreed, the said tenant filed a title appeal, which gave rise to Title Appeal No. 2 of 1979, which was allowed, whereupon the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners instituted a suit against the said Nirmalendu Chakraborty in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, for eviction of the said Nirmalendu Chakraborty. The suit gave rise to Title Suit No. 212/1979, which was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and, in course of time, the same was put into execution in Title Execution Case No. 9/1980.

2. While the Execution Case No. 9/1980 was pending, the opposite party No. 1 herein, namely, Swapan Saha, instituted a suit, which gave rise to Title Suit No. 29/1980, against the said Arunendu Kishore Gupta, (i.e., predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners), as Defendant, praying for a direction to be issued to the said predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff-Petitioners to execute a lease deed in favour of the Plaintiff (i.e., Swapan Saha), for declaration that the decree, obtained in Title Suit No. 212/1979 aforementioned, was fraudulent and for permanent injunction restraining eviction of the Plaintiff, (i.e., Swapan Saha) from the suit premises. During pendency of the suit, namely, Title Suit No. 29/1980, Arunendu Kishore Gupta died and the present Petitioners came to be substituted in his place as Defendants. Likewise, the present Petitioners also got themselves substituted in Title Execution Case No. 9/1980 as decree-holders. When the Title Suit No. 29/1980, filed by the said Swapan Saha, (i.e., opposite party No. 1 herein) was dismissed, he filed an appeal, which gave rise to Title Appeal No. 100/1985. The appeal also came to be dismissed, whereupon a second appeal was preferred by the said Swapan Saha, which gave rise to Second Appeal No. 172/1987, but the second appeal too ended in dismissal.

3. Still dissatisfied, the opposite party No. 1 herein, namely, Swapan Saha, carried the matter to the Supreme Court by filing an application seeking special leave for appeal. This application gave rise to Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12737/95, which came to be finally dismissed by order, dated 25.1.1995. In the said special leave petition, the opposite party No. 1 herein stated that during pendency of the Second Appeal No. 172/1987, he (Swapan Saha), came to learn that one Sukesh Ranjan Dey, (i.e., the opposite party No. 2 herein), was also a co-owner of the suit premises along with the present Petitioners and that the opposite party No. 1 herein had purchased the share of the said Sukesh Ranjan Dey, in the said property, by a registered sale deed on 16.9.1988.

4. Thereafter, the present Petitioners instituted another suit, which gave rise to Title Suit No. 66/1991, against the present opposite parties seeking, inter alia, a decree declaring that said Sukesh Ranjan Dey, not being a co-sharer of the suit land, had no saleable interest in the suit property and/or possession therein, that the sale deed, dated 7.8.1988, executed by said Sukesh Ranjan Dey, in favour of said Swapan Saha, be declared illegal, void, collusive, inoperative and a mere paper transaction, which is not binding on the Plaintiffs, for setting aside the said sale deed and, alternatively, for declaring the Plaintiff's preferential right to acquire the land as mentioned in the schedule of the sale deed and for transferring the same to the Plaintiffs and for permanent injunction agai