IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue injunctions and the consideration of privacy, security, and alternative entrances in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. One Anil Chandra Karmakar purchased the scheduled mentioned suit property and after purchasing the same he was residing with his family members by making necessary construction therein. Thereafter said Anil died intestate on 4th September 2009 leaving behind him his widow and a son namely Debasish Karmakar, who is opposite party herein and two daughters including petitioner herein. Other daughter of Anil namely Ruchita Guha died, leaving behind her two daughters.

2. Petitioner’s contention is during the life time of said Anil, he gifted entire ground floor of the suit property in favour of petitioner herein by a deed of gift dated 22nd August 2007 and delivered the vacant possession of the entire ground floor of the suit property in favour of the petitioner who accepted the same. There was no disturbance in possessing and in occupying the said entire ground floor of the said property by the petitioner during life time of Anil, but after his demise, his aforesaid son Debashis allegedly started creating disturbance in peaceful possession and occupation of the said ground floor of the suit building by the petitioner/Defendant No.1.

3. Aforesaid son of Anil namely Debasis Karmakar being the plaintiff, instituted present suit being T.S. No. 653 of 2012 against present petitioner and also other co-owners of the suit property, inter alia, praying for declaration that the said deed of gift in favour of petitioner herein is illegal, manufactured and liable to be cancelled with further prayer for injunction. Initially the Trial court refused to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction. Petitioner herein thereafter appeared and filed written objection against the said injunction application. After contested hearing, Trial court was pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction to the effect that defendant No. 1 shall not create any third-party interest in respect of the suit property and further pleased to direct both plaintiff as well as defendant no. 1 /petitioner herein to allow each other to have reasonable access through the common stair-cases and the other common areas of the suit property and petitioner herein /defendant No. 1 was further directed to provide the duplicate key of the lock used in the main entrance gate by him to the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff can use the same.

4. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner /defendant preferred Mis-Appeal before the Learned District Judge, Barasat being Mis-Appeal no. 141 of 2016. Learned Appellate Court disposed of the said Mis-Appeal by the order impugned, whereby the court below has affirmed the order of the Trial Court and thereby dismissed the Mis-Appeal.

5. Challenging the said order Ms. Mondal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the order impugned is not tenable in the eye of law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the instance case, in view of the fact that the appellant No. 1 is the absolute owner occupier and possessor of entire ground floor of the suit property and she has the absolute right and authority to transfer the entire ground floor of the suit property and in respect of her share in the other portion of the suit property. She further submits that both the courts below failed to appreciate that there is another common staircase and the other common areas for which all the co-owners are using the same without any disturbance to each other. The order impugned is also bad in law in view of the fact that pursuant to such order of the court the plaintiff is trying to enter the ground floor of the petitioner/appellant and to occupy the same illegally in order to reach first floor of the suit property, in spite of the fact that there is common staircase outside the ground floor and by using the same, one can easily reach to the first floor of the suit property where the plaintiff is residing and to the roof top where the respective water tanks are installed. He further submits that taking ad