IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Invention Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Rita Rani (Ghosh) Paul and Others – Respondents
C.O. No. 167 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1& 2 – Section 151 – Hindu Successions Act, 1956 – Limitation Act – Section 59 – Specific Relief Act – Section 34 – Grant of injunction is an equitable relief - Whether Court is competent to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - Held, Court dealing with an order of ad interim injunction promulgated in a suit for partition – Pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistence later does not begin to operate until former is renounced – Animus possidendi requisite ingredient of adverse possession – Mere possession of land will not ripen into possessory title purpose – Possessor must have animus possidendi land adverse to title of true owner purpose not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist same must be shown to exist at commencement of possession – Court unable to interfere with concurrent findings of Learned Trial Court and Learned Appellate Court while injunction application Civil Procedure is still pending for disposal where parties are at liberty to raise all issues – Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
1. The order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Baruipur, District 24 Parganas (South) in connection with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 2022 is under challenge.
2. By the order impugned Learned Judge affirmed the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by Leaned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court, in Title Suit No. 504 of 2022.
Background facts:
3. The subject property being 11 decimal of land appertaining to R.S Plot no. 1332 originally belonged to one Priyanath Ghosh who died before Hindu Successions Act, 1956 came into force leaving behind his 3 sons - Amulya Charan Ghosh, Charu Chandra Ghosh & Putiram Ghosh. Wife of said Priyanath Ghosh predeceased him. Thereby, 3 sons of Priyanath Ghosh inherited 1/3rd share each in the subject property. Putiram Ghosh died leaving behind his widow Jamuna Bala Ghosh only. Accordingly, names of Amulay Charan Ghosh, Charu Chandra Ghosh & Jamuna Bala Ghosh have been duly recorded 1/3rd against share each under R.S Khatian No. 532. Jamuna Bala Ghosh transferred her 1/3rd undivided share to Charu Chandra Ghosh on the basis of a registered sale deed no. 10520 dated 12.12.1962 and delivered possession. Thereby, Charu Chandra Ghosh became owner of 2/3rd share of subject property.
4. Amuly Charan Ghosh died intestate leaving behind his widow (Radharani Ghosh), two sons (Ratan Ghosh & Madan Ghosh) and 3 daughters (Gita Ghosh, Rikta @ Ritarani Ghosh Pal & Menoka Das). Thereby, all the heirs of Amulay Charan Ghosh got 1/18th share each in the subject property. Among them Menoka Das & Rikta Rani @ Rita Rani Ghosh Paul are plaintiff no. 1& 2.
5. Gita Ghosh died intestate leaving behind her two sons (Ranjit Ghosh & Dinesh Ghosh) and 3 daughters (Tinku Ghosh, Pratima Ghosh & Mithu Mandol). Thereby, all sons and daughters of Gita Ghosh inherited 1/19th share each in the subject property. All of them were made as plaintiff no. 3 to 7 in the suit. All in all plaintiff nos. 1 to 7 jointly had 1/6th share in the property in question.
6. Radha Rani Ghosh, Ratan Ghosh, Madan Ghosh & Charu Chandra Ghosh having 5/6th share jointly transferred the entire plot to one Sadek Ali Saikh by a registered sale deed no. 3119 / 1973. Thereby, Sadek Ali Saikh got 5/6th share in the subject property. Said Sadek Ali Saikh having 5/6th share in the property in question died leaving behind his first wife (Belati Seikh), daughters of first wife (Asma Bibi, Najma Bibi & Minati Khatun Bibi), 2nd wife (Mamtaz Seikh), three sons of 2nd wife (Salauddin Seikh, Kabul Seikh and Habibar Seikh) and two daughters of 2nd wife (Surhiya Begam & Minu Mondal).
7. Salaudddin Seikh died issueless leaving behind his mother Mamtaz Seikh and widow Rahima Biwi. Legal heirs of Sadek Ali jointly sold the plot share to the petitioners/defendants.
8. Plaintiffs filed the suit being no. 504 of 2022 before the Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Baruipur, District 24 Parganas (South) along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1& 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for temporary injunction restraining in the defendants from changing the nature and character of the subject property and /or from raising any construction over the subject property and/ or restraining the defendants from alienating the subject property to any 3rd party. Learned Judge allowed ex-parte injunction directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of their possession.
9. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners /defendants preferred an appeal before Learned Additional District Judge at Baruipur, District 24 Parganas (South). The said appeal being no. 34 of 2022 was heard and Learned Judge affirmed the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Baruipur, 24 Parganas (South).
10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Learned Additional District Judge Baruirpur, 24 Parganas (South) preferred this applicat
Bengal Club limited vs. Sushanta Kumar Chowdhury
Court must be satisfied that party praying for relief has a prima-facie case and balance of convenience is in its favour- Besides above, while granting injunction, if any, Court is also required to c....
The court established that for a temporary injunction, a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience must all be satisfied.
Co-sharer suppressing own construction on joint land approaches without clean hands and cannot restrain others from constructing on their exclusive portion; injunction requires proof of prejudice or ....
Point of Law : Grant of temporary injunction is not to be claimed by a party as a matter of right nor can be denied by a court arbitrarily rather, discretion in this regard is to be exercised by a co....
Disposal of other questions.-- (1) Where there is a question as to property to be divided, or the mode of making a partition, Revenue Officer shall, after such inquiry as he deems necessary, record a....
(1) Injunction – Such three ingredients are not only to exist but must co-exist – Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title, which requires to be established on evidence at trial.....
Temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.