In the Learned court of civil judge Junior Division 1st Court ,Jalpaiguri

T.S /2019

Suit for declaration and injunction

1. Laksmi Sarkar D/O Sanosh Sarkar

2. Durgarani Sarkar W/O Santosh Sarkar
3. Rony Sarkar S/O Santosh Sarkar

Village Darikamari , Sarkar Para

Jhajhagi P.O-Takatili

P.S-Maynaguri

…….Plaintiffs

SuKhoranjan Sarkar S/O Khagendra Sark Village

Darikamari , Sarkar Para

Jhajhagi P.O-Takatili

P.S-Maynaguri

The plaintiff above named sheweath

1. That the predecessor of plaintiff Santosh Sarkar was th owner of the land under Mouza-
Darkimari ,Khatian No-52 ,Plot no-3260 , land measuring 46 De.
2. That the said Santosh Sarkar abandoned his family and left leaving behind Durgarani Sarkar,
Shyamlal Sarkar , Rony Sarkar and Laksmi Sarkar.
3. The said Santosh Srakar left his house in the year 1995 and since then he has not come back
people in their locality also has not heard about the said Santosh Sarkar.
4. At present the plaintiff is looking after the property of the said Santosh Sarkar and have
been physically enjoying and occupying the land.
5. The plaintiff is also looking after the property of Shyamlal , one of the sons of Santosh
Sarkar.
6. One Suchitra Sarkar has filed a suit for partition before the Civil Judge Sr. Division Jalpaiguri
vide P.S-12/2012 and from the record of said the plaintiff came to learn on -----------------------
------ that the defendant claiming that the suit property had been gifted by said Santosh
Sarkar in favour of Premananda Sarkar and Sukhananda Sarkar.
7. The Plaintiff further came to loearn that their father gifted land measuring 3De to said
Premananda and Sukhananda vide deed of gift no-486 dated 9/2/1998.
8. The the said Sukhananda Sarkar and Premannada Sarkar had no blood connection with the
plaintiff father and the said Sukhananda Sarkar reside near the house and suit land of the
plaintiff and the said sukhananda Sarkar has many land beside NH-31.
9. That the suit land is in front of the plaintiff house and it is their only ingress and egress to
the main road NH-31.
10. That after the abandonment by Santosh Sarkar the plaintiffs jointly constructed a big shop-
room in front of their house and runs business including garage , tea-stall etc. and passing
their livelihood from the income of the said business .
11. That the plaintiff family has no other landed property except the suit land and the ancestral
home which is situated on the Northern side of the suit property .
12. The defendants has not claimed till ----------------- that the suit land was gifted by Santosh
Sarkar to him and the people in the locality also do not know about the deed of gift of the
said Santosh Sarkar.
13. That the defendants got no possession as Santosh Sarkar has not delivered the possession as
the suit land is in physical possession of plaintiff and his family moreover the said Santosh
Sarkar left Maynaguri in the year of 1995.
14. That plaintiff after going through deed of gift realised that the signature in the said deed is
not the signature of Santosh Sarkar and further deed of gift has been acted upon or
accepted by the defendants as physical possession remains with the plaintiff.
15. That the relation between the plaintiff family and the defendants was very caustic and
Santosh Sarkar had no good relation with the defendants as since a long dispite was going
on between Santosh Sarkar and Sukhananda and Premananda Sarkar.
16. If a local inspection is held in respect of the suit property and the house of the plaintiff this
will reveal that the suit property is infront of plaintiff’s house .
17. That the said Santosh Sarkar when was with his family members , he had not mentioned
Or disclosed the intention of the deed of gift to Sukhananda Sarkar and Premananda Sarkar .
18. That the said deed of gift has created a cloud upon the right title interest of plaintiff’s
property for that a declaration is required to be sought for.
19. That on ----------------------- the defendants on the strength of the so called deed of gift tried
to enter the suit land and for that defendant is required to be restrained by an injunction
order.
20. As the said Santosh Sarkar has not executed any deed of gift and has not delivered
possession to the defendants the defendants is to be restrained from disturbing the peaceful
possession of plaintiff by an injunction order.
21. That the course of action arose on -------------- when the defendants disclosed about the so
called deed of gift by the father of plaintiff to the defendants .
22. The suit is for declaration and injunction and the suit is valued at 100+100 /- and court fee
accordingly paid.
Prayer-

a)Decree declaring that the plaintiff are not bound by the deed of gift.

b)A permanent injunction restraining the defendants to enter into the suit land or to create
disturbance in any way in the peaceful enjoyment of the suit land.

c)A temporary injunction.

d)Any other relief or relieves.

e)cost of suit.

Schedule

Dist – Jalpaiguri, Registry Office-Additional District Sub-registrar Maynaguri , deed of gift no-486
dated – 92/1998

Under Mouza –Darikamari , Khatian no-52, Plot no-3260 , land measuring 0.03De

VERIFICAtION