Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.

Doubting the correctness of the order dated 13.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Contai in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2015, the petitioner/plaintiff has come before this Court.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the learned Courts below failed to consider that the opposite party is raising construction in excess of their share and that too in the best portion of the suit property. According to him, if no injunction order is passed, he would be highly prejudiced. He further stated that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court are totally confused as to ‘prima facie title’ and ‘prima facie case’.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that both the Courts below appreciated the factual aspects and legal aspects in its proper perspectives and so the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

4. To come to a finding factual aspect of the case is to be relooked. Petitioner’s case is such that the suit property originally belonged to Hemanta Pramanik and Basanta Pramanik. The said Hemanta Pramanik transferred his shar