12.11.2025 SL No.21 Court No.6 (gc) CO 3656 of 2025 Aminul Sekh & Ors. Vs. Ilam Bari Kha & Ors. Mr. Mohaimenul Mondal …for the Petitioners. Ms. Manali Biswas …for the O.P. No.1 to 7, 11 & 14. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated July 31, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2025. By the order impugned, the learned Appellate Court rejected the misc. appeal on the ground that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, refusing to grant any injunction in favour of the petitioners, was justified. 2. The learned appellate Court observed that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a certified copy of C.S. khatian no.45 of Mouza Janpur showing that 10 plots, including the suit plot no.9, were recorded in the name of Parbat Kha. He also filed certified copy of the RS khatian no.45 in which the name of Iyarnabi Seikh and others were recorded but it was noticed that No.9 had been penned through and khatian no.220 was written in the remarks column. On the other hand, the defendants filed 2 a copy of RS khatian no.220 showing the names of their predecessors as Raiyats. A copy of details of the suit plot issued by the B.L & L.R.O. was also filed by the defendants. The names of the defendants were available. The defendants submitted rent receipts corresponding to the khatian numbers mentioned against the suit plot, to show that regular land rents were being paid. The Court was of the view that, although the record of rights did not create any presumption of title, nevertheless the rebuttable presumption of possession was in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff did not file a single receipt or any document to establish possession. Rather, the R.S. khatian and L.R. Khatian, both stood in the names of the defendants and/or their predecessors. 3. According to the Court, the subsequent record of rights would prevail over the earlier one. The learned Trial Judge also refused the injunction and the ground that although the C.S. record was in the name of Parbat Kha. The proforma defendants and the petitioners claimed to be legal heirs of Safatulla and Marfat, but the learned Trial Judge held that the relation between Parbat and Safatulla and Marfat could not be ascertained and was not mentioned in the plaint. Under such circumstances, the latest record of 3 rights was accepted by the learned Trial Judge and the prayer for injunction was refused in the absence of any evidence of possession by the plaintiffs. 4. Under such circumstances, both the learned Courts have applied their minds to the materials on record and have minutely gone through the pleadings, to arrive at the finding that the possession of the plaintiff could not be, prima facie, established. The prayer for injunction was rightly refused. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said decisions, as the same are neither perverse nor do the same suffer from error apparent on face of the record. 5. The revisional application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Parties are to act on the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)