The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, a transferee who acquires title over immovable property from a co-owner assumes the character of joint owner and is entitled to possession of the property, even if it was not partitioned by metes and bounds.

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. One Satish Chandra Poirya, since deceased was the original owner of a piece and parcel of land measuring about 20 decimals in plot No.284 appertaining to khatian No.78 of mouja Bhagwanpur within P.S Debra (hereafter the suit property). Nature of the suit property has been recorded as Kala/bastu in the L.R Record of Rights. After the death of Satish Chandra, the suit property was inherited by his four sons, namely, Sreepati Charan Poirya, Bhibhuti Charan, Pashupati and Bijoy Krishna in equal share. While the abovenamed co-sharers had been possessing the suit property jointly in respect of their undivided share, they decided to effect partition of the suit property along with other joint property and by virtue of a registered deed of partition dated 19th August, 1943, the suit was partitioned amongst the above named co-sharers. It is, however, contended that in spite of such partition, the suit property was not demarcated by metes and bounds between the co-sharers. The plaintiffs/petitioners and proforma defendants/opposite parties have been possessing the suit property jointly as per their sharers. It alleged by the plaintiffs/petitioners that the proforma defendants/opposite parties surreptitiously transferred their undivided 1/4th share in the suit property by executing a registered deed of sale in favour of principal defendants/opposite parties No.1 and 2. After purchasing the opposite parties took genuine attempts to raise construction over the suit property which prompted the petitioners to institute Title Suit No.172 of 2014 in the 3rd Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paschim Medinipur.

2. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter CPC) for temporary injunction against opposite parties No.1 and 2 restraining them from raising any construction over the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

3. By an order dated 10th November, 2014, the learned trial judge rejected petitioners' prayer for temporary injunction. The said order dated 10th November, 2014 was assailed by the petitioners by preferring Misc Appeal No.110 of 2014 which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2016. This order is impugned in the instant revision under Article 227 of the Constitution at the instance of the plaintiffs/petitioners.

4. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 have filed affidavit in opposition against the said revision wherein and where under they have specifically contended that the suit property was effectively partitioned amongst the co-sharers by a registered deed of partition and they used to possess 05 decimal of demarcated land each separately as per the deed of partition. One of the co-sharers, namely Bibhuti Poriya sold out his 05 decimal of land in favour of opposite party No.2 Subrata Samanta and his brother Debabrata Samanta by a registered deed of sale dated 9th August, 2002. Similarly, one Mohan Kumar Poriya, son of Sripati Charan transferred 05 decimal of land by another deed of sale executed and registered on 7th June, 2005 in favour of opposite party No.1. After purchase, the opposite parties mutated their names in L.R Record of Rights. They obtained building plan from the competent authority and raised structure on their well demarcated portion of land being part of the suit property. The suit property was never a joint undivided property of the petitioners and the vendors of the opposite parties.

5. The petitioners, in tune, filed an affidavit in reply stating, inter alia, that the deed executed by and between the co-sharers on 19th August, 1943 was not a deed of partition in as much as the respective sharers of the co-sharers were not demarcated by metes and bounds by virtue of the said deed. It only declared the share of the parties. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants have been possessing the suit property jointly as per their undivided share. The opposite