A party claiming adverse possession must establish a prima facie case of possession that is open, continuous, hostile, and exclusive for the requisite period. The balance of convenience is a relevant consideration in determining whether to grant an injunction, especially when public interest is involved.

Bimal Chandra Basak, J. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the trial court dismissing the application of the petitioner-appellant for an injunction. The suit was filed by one Preeti Singha Roy stated to be the Secretary of the Calcutta Ladies Golf Club (hereinafter referred to as the said Club) against the Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Tramways) for a declaration that the Club is entitled to retain possession of the land shown in exhibit ‘A’ and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its servants and/or agents from trespassing upon, damaging or digging up in any way the said land or any part thereof And for Rs. 5,000/- as damages. The plaintiff’s case as sought to be made out in the plaint is that the Calcutta Ladies Golf Club was founded in or about 1891 and had been duly registered as a Society on 17th October, 1979. The plaintiff is the Secretary of the said Club and as such entitled to sue on behalf of the of the said society. It is stated that form about 1891 the Club came into possession of the Land in the Maidan indicated in a plan prepared by the authorities o Government in about 1923 as specified in exhibit ‘A’ to the plaint of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the said land). The right claimed by the Club in respect of the said land, is set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint which are set out herein-below:-

“3. From about 1891 the Club came into possession of the land in the Maidan indicated in a plan prepared by the authorities of Government in about 1923 as specified in exhibit ‘A’ hereto

4. Subject only to such administrative control as has been exercised by the authorities of Police, the club has been in possession of the said land openly, continuously and as of right for over 90 years and had constructed a structure used as a pavilion thereon for which a fee was and is being paid to the police authorities”

2. Thereafter it is alleged that in or about December 19, 1985, some workmen or labourers of the defendant suddenly encroached upon a portion of the said land and started to dig the same without the consent or authority of the Club. The allegation is of encroachment.

3. On that basis an application fore injunction was made and the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. The learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground of balance of convenience. The learned trial Judge held as follows:

“While it is true that realignment of the Tramway track would definitely affect the golf course, but it would have to be seen as to whether the Law Court would be justified in the matter of granting an order of injunction in a case like this, where benefit to millions may be thwarted or be rendered nugatory in order to allow a small section of the people to enjoy and relax in the lush green area of Calcutta Maidan Crores of rupees have been spent on the Bridge to ameliorate the conditions of the traveling millions in the city of Calcutta. Tramway tracks if allowed to remain on the existing path without any realigament of the same, the experts opine, would lead to such a traffic hazard that the Bridge would be of no use to its users. Criticism has been leveled on the alteration of the alignment of the tramway tracks since 1979, but Calcutta’s problems so that in an attempt to remedy the problems, efforts are now being made so that the problems may remain at a minimal and not take a gigantic shape. In its bid to restrict the problems to he minimal, the authorities thought it fit upon expert advice to further realign the tramway track. There is no denial of fact that traffic hazard is enormous in the city of Calcutta, but in a developmental work undertaken by the appropriate authority for the benefit of the millions, balance of convenience ought to be of prime consideration in the matter of grant of Injunction. This is, however, apart from the issue as regards the question of damage being an adequate remedy thought, however, I