In the court of civil judge junior division 2ND court

Jalpaiguri

Suit for permanent injunction , valued at RS 100

T.S NO-

In the matter of

Ratan Saha S/O Kanna Saha resident of Bakali

Bazar,P.O Dharmapur,P.S maynaguri,Dist Jalpaiguri

…Plaintiff

==VERSUS==

1.Monoj Basak S/O Jonak Bollab Basak

2.Mridul and Mithu Basak S/O Pulin Basak

3. Amal Basak S/O Pulin

All 1 to 3 resident of Bakali Bazar ,P.O Dharmapur

,P.S Maynaguri ,Dist Jalpaiguri

…..Defendant

1. The plaintiff abov named most respectfully sweth.

2. The father of plaintiff Kama Saha was the recorded owner of the land uner mauza-
Dharmapur, P.S Maynaguri,dist- Jalpaiguri.
3. After the demise of the said Kanu saha his share devolved upon his legal heirs . Krishna sha
, Joshna saha ,uttam saha, mani saha ,nitai saha, nimai saha &b tan asah.
4. That the said legal heirs thereafyter amicably partitioned the land through amin preparing
sketchmap as per village panchayat Shalisha and all of them accepted the said demarcation
and family settlement and acted upon.
5. Thereafter the above legal heirs acted upon he said family settlement by signing on papers
of village shalashi and constructed their house with distinct separate shares, making
boundary walls as per their distinct shares.
6. That the plaintiff by way of such family settlement bought 7D(decimal) land with distinct
separate shares.
In north direction – road
In south direction- rattan saha
In East direction –nemoi saha
In west direction- nitai saha

7. A sketch map showing the family settlement papers and plaintiff land is annexed here as per
th plaint as per annexture A of this plaint.
8. During L.R settlement operation a sepertion khatian has been opened in the name of th
plaintiff vide Khatian No-77 and plaintiff possessing the same
9. It is pertinent to mention here as the land is a Dohola , but it was previously a pond and
therefore classified as pond so now the nature of land is to taken as Dohola.
10. That the defendant whose house is situated just opposite to the suit land taking advantage
of the absence of the plaintiff the defendant tried to enter the land and to to disposses the
plaintiff of the land.
11. That on 7/6/19 the defendant along with some local goons tried to diposses the plaintiff
from his lawful possession and only getting information about the illegal acts of the
defendants and on being given objection by the plaintiff and his relatives they could not
succeed.
12. For the above illegal acts of the defendants , the defendants are required to be restrained
from entering the suit land or creating any disturbance in the peaceful enjoyment of the
defendants property.
13. That the B.L.R.O being made party as a proformer defendant but no relief has been claimed
against hi the absence of the plaintiff the defendant as the suit is required to be heard on his
presence.
14. That the cause of action for suit arose on 7/6/19 and thereafter on 10/6/19 and the same is
continuing within thhe jurisdiction of the learned court .
15. That the suit is for injunction, the same is valued at Rs100 and court fee paid accordingly.
16. The plaintiff therefore pay –

a)A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or any person

claiming through defendant to entr into the suit land and create any disturbance in
the peaceful enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiff.

b) A temporary injunction.

c)cost of the suit .

d)Any other relief or relieves.

SUIT LAND

Dist-Jalpaiguri,Mouza –Dharampur,P.S - maynaguri ,Khatian N0-77,Sheet No- 2

Plot no-1896 land measuring -10D (decimal)