JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

2. The present petition is filed assailing an order dated 02.03.2022, passed by the learned appellate Court (Civil Judge, Karimganj) in Misc. Appeal No. 06/2020, whereby the aforesaid appeal was allowed granting injunction, which was refused by the learned trial Court (Munsiff No. 3) in Misc.(J) Case No. 132/2019 under its order dated 24.01.20220.

3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 102/2019 primarily with the following prayer:-

a. For a decree declaring that suit land is the Wakf property of the Farirmukh Dakshingram Jame Masjid and having right, title, interest and confirmation of possession.

b. For giving a direction to the defendants Nos. 9 & 10 to mutate the name of the Farirmukh Dakshingram Jame Masjid in respect of the suit land and issue patta accordingly.

c. For setting aside the ex-parte decree and judgment passed by the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.-1, Karimganj vide Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2002 in Title Suit No. 185/2000.

d. For perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from creating any disturbance in using, occupying the suit land by the Farirmukh Dakshingram Jame Masjid and from the aforesaid illegal acts and deeds in respect of the suit land.

e. For perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 9 & 10 from mutation of the names of the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in respect of the suit land.

4. The basic facts pleaded by the plaintiffs are that:

I. The scheduled land measuring 171 decimals 6 Kedars and 3 Jasties is Jalatak type of land and is the Wakf property under the plaintiff No. 1. According to the plaintiff, such land was recorded in the name of Masjid during the first settlement survey operation. The father of the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 was the Mutawalli and accordingly got his name recorded in respect of the suit property. Subsequently, the plaintiffs came to learn that the name of the Masjid has been removed from the chitha book and the suit land has been wrongly recorded as government khas land.

II. When the plaintiffs detected such defect, they approached the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authorities advised them that until and unless a decree is passed by a Civil Court, such correction cannot be made.

III. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs came to learn that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has obtained an ex-parte decree from the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 1 (Junior Division), Karimganj, against the State Government and got the decree by mentioning imaginary boundary of the suit land and claim the land by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1948.

IV. According to the plaintiffs, the said ex-parte decree was obtained fraudulently by misguiding the court and accordingly, prayed for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

V. It is also the pleaded case that the defendants are trying to grab the land which belongs to the Masjid in terms of the settlement under 1st settlement survey operation.

5. The private defendants contested the suit by filling written statement and their basic stands were to the following effect:

I. There was no settlement at any point of time in favour of the Masjid.

II. The land in question was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants by way of registered sale deed in the year 1948.

III. As the Government has wrongly converted the land as a government khas land, suit was filed and accordingly a decree was passed in their favour. They have denied that the decree was obtained fraudulently etc.

6. The Government of Assam also filed written statement and took a stand that the suit filed by plaintiffs is a collusive suit and the said suit has been fi