document?
3. Whether a decree can be passed in favour of proforma defendants
who have neither authorized the plaintiffs to represent their cause nor
participated ... predecessor of the plaintiffs and the
proforma Defendant No.16 and the predecessor of all other proforma
Defendants were in possession of the suit land
Principal Defendants in the injunction
proceedings wherein the Principal Defendants have duly admitted that it was
mutually decided between the Principal Defendants and Labanya Bhuiya ... proforma defendants and the stipulation contained therein mentioned that the
Principal Defendants and the proforma defendants have to dispose/sale or
develop the said
that the plaintiff along with the
principal defendants and the proforma defendants were in joint
possession of 2 bighas 18 kathas 5 chattaks of land ... proforma defendants for partition since the month of January,
Page No.# 5/10
2009. However, both the principal defendants and the proforma
defendants
death, Abdul Latif Laskar and
thereafter the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants continued to possess the suit land.
7. It is the specific case ... declaration of ownership, right, title and
interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants over the suit land; a decree declaring
confirmation of possession thereof
been pleaded that the plaintiff along with the proforma defendants are the
joint owners of the Schedule A land and is the undivided joint family ... statement filed by the
proforma defendant wherein it has been specifically pleaded that the
plaintiff along with the proforma defendants are joint owners
described in Schedule 'B', the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants
Nos. 6 to 8 had another plot of land admeasuring 5 Bighas ... over the suit land?
6. Whether the main defendants and the proforma defendants are not the
tenants under the plaintiffs and they have no occupancy
described in Schedule 'B', the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants
Nos. 6 to 8 had another plot of land admeasuring 5 Bighas ... over the suit land?
6. Whether the main defendants and the proforma defendants are not the
tenants under the plaintiffs and they have no occupancy
said tenants. However,
on 12.02.1995, the defendant No.1 asked the proforma defendants to vacate
the houses let out to them by the plaintiff ... defendant No.1 in presence of other
family members and the proforma defendants threatened him with dire
consequences. It is under such circumstances that
learned courts below as regards possession of
the plaintiff and proforma defendants are perverse for non-
consideration/misreading of evidence on record?
Page ... remaining defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 were arrayed as proforma defendants.
From a perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the plaintiffs along with
described in the Schedule to the plaint, on 17.03.2004 from
the proforma defendants and since then he was in possession of the said land
till ... that the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 who were
arrayed as proforma defendants, filed their written statement denying the claim
of the plaintiff
