The deed of retirement must be duly stamped and registered as per the Indian Stamp Act to affect the right, title, and interest of a partner in immovable property.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

1. This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order being No. 2 dated 17th April, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court at Barasat in Title Suit No. 281 of 2017 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.

2. By the impugned order the plaintiff's prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned Trial Judge. Notice was directed to be served upon the defendant Nos. 2 to 7 asking them to show cause as to why temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff shall be granted against them.

3. Let us now consider the legality of the said judgment in the facts of the present case. It is stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were partners of an unregistered partnership firm. They purchased the suit property by several registered deeds of kobala while all of them were partners of the said partnership firm. Such purchases were made in the name of the partnership firm represented by the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as its partners. It is alleged in the plaint that some of the co-sharers have executed a deed of partition without joining of the plaintiff and thereby effected partition of the suit property illegally. Since the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are claiming ownership over the suit property on the strength of transfer of the suit property from some of the co-sharers, they are also impleaded as defendants in the instant suit. Since the plaintiff was facing difficulty in enjoying the suit property jointly with his co-sharers, he made a request orally to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for amicable partition of the suit property. Such prayer of the plaintiff having been turned down by those defendants, the instant suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff.

4. After filing the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession in the suit property and also for restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character thereof till the disposal of the suit. Relief by way of ad interim injunction was also sought for by the plaintiff in the said application.

5. The learned Trial Judge after perusing the materials on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Court about the existence of the prima facie case in the suit. Such conclusion was drawn by the learned Trial Judge by considering the deed of partition being annexure (e) whereby the suit property was partitioned amicably amongst co-sharers and the reason for excluding the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 in the process of partition was not found to be unjustified as they had relinquished their share in the partnership firm.

6. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this appeal.

7. It is well-settled that even at the stage of considering the plaintiff's prayer for ad interim injunction, the Court is required to consider the three basic principles for grant of injunction i.e., (i) prima facie case (ii) balance of convenience and inconvenience and (iii) irreparable loss and injury.

8. However, there are some basic distinction between consideration of those principles of grant of injunction at two different stages of the injunction proceeding. At the stage of consideration of the plaintiff's prayer for ad interim injunction, Court is required to be satisfied with regard to all the three tests by considering the pleading of the plaintiff himself and the document which will be relied upon by the plaintiff at the time of hearing of the plaintiff's prayer for ad interim injunction. No other document can be considered by the Court while considering the plaintiff's prayer for ad interim injunction. On the contrary, while considering plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, the Court is required to be satisfied about all the three tests after considering the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as the pleadings of the defendants and the d