The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove prima facie possession and ownership in property disputes to obtain a temporary injunction.

Amitabha Chatterjee, J.

The instant revisional application has been filed against the order dated May 12, 2016 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court III, Basirhat (N) 24- Parganas in Misc. appeal No. 30 of 2014 arising out of title suit No. 178 of 2013, whereby the Learned Judge in the court below allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court, Basirhat. The Learned Trial Judge passed an order of injunction restraining the defendant No. 1/opposite parties from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/petitioner till disposal of the suit vide order dated 18.08.2014.

2. The petitioners case to put in brief is that the plaintiff/petitioner Sankar Baidya became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property by purchasing the said properties from one Mrityunjoy Boral S/o Late Dhirendra Nath Boral of village Uttar Kanchdaha, post Office Kanchdaha, P.S. Swarupnagar, 24-Parganas (N) on the strength of two sale deeds both being registered before the office of the D.S.R. II (N) 24-Parganas, the first deed being recorded in book No. 1, C.D. Vol. No. 11, pages 113 to 131, being No. 003362 for the year 2010 and the second deed being recorded in book No. 1, C.D. Vol. No. 42, pages 118 to 137 being numbered 12479 for the year 2012.

3. Originally the suit property belonged to one Akub Ali Gayen and during his possession he transferred the said suit property in favour of Dhirendra Nath Boral since deceased by virtue of the registered deed being numbered 3859 dated 25.10.1989 and thus relinquished his absolute possession.

4. Dhirendra Nath Boral during his possession expired leaving behind his only son Mrityunjoy Boral who inherited the suit property from his deceased father and thereafter recorded his name before the records of the BL and LRO having LR Khatian No. 1577.

5. Said Mrityunjoy Boral during his peaceful possession into suit property transferred the same in favour of the petitioner Sankar Baidya by two aforesaid registered sale deeds and delivered possession thereof. Thereafter the petitioner Sankar Baidya recorded his name in respect of the suit property in LR Khatian No. 1303 and thus remain in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the tenure of his peaceful possession the sudden dispute arose on and from 01.09.2013 when the defendant/opposite party Sikha Biswas along with her men and agents tried to encroach upon the suit property by trying to dispossess the petitioner.

7. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit vide No. title suit No. 178 of 2013 before the Learned First Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Basirhat praying for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1/opposite party thus restraining the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/petitioner, not to oust the plaintiff/petitioner from the suit property without the due process of law, and not to change the nature and character of the suit property and also for a decree for permanent injunction in this regard.

8. On 09.09.2013 the plaintiff/petitioner also filed one petition under order 39 rule 1 and 2 C.P.C read with Section 151 of the said C.P.C. for getting an order of ad interim injunction in this regard. The Learned Court below passed an order vide order No. 2 dated 10.09.2013 restraining the defendant No. 1/opposite party from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/petitioner over the suit property till 30.09.2013 which was extended from time to time.

9. The plaintiff/petitioner duly complied with the aforesaid order of the Learned Court and summons of the case was duly served upon the defendant/opposite party.

10. The defendant duly appeared in the said matter and the matter was contested by the defendant No. 1/opposite party before the said Court and it was in the presence of both the parties, the matter of in