Status quo orders in property disputes must be based on clear findings of possession; courts must protect property rights during litigation.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. In this revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the judgment and order dated September 26, 2024 as passed by learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 2022 is impugned.

2. By the impugned order the First Appellate Court while dismissing the said appeal affirmed the order of status quo as passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 483 of 2022.

3. The plaintiff who is the petitioner before this Court felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

4. For effective adjudication of the instant revisional application the facts leading to filing of the instant revisional application are required to be dealt with in a nutshell and those are as under:

(i) By fling Title Suit No. 483 of 2022 the plaintiff has stated that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by way of purchase and he has recorded his name in the record of right in respect of the suit property. It is the further plaint case that the defendants having no right, title and interest over the suit property are making an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and thus the plaintiff by filing the said suit has prayed for decree for declaration, decree for permanent injunction along with other ancillary reliefs.

(ii) In the self-same suit the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit property as well as from alienating the suit property to any third party.

(iii) By an order dated 29.09.2022 learned Trial Court passed an ad interim order of injunction as prayed for against the defendants.

(iv) After service of notice the defendants appeared in the said suit and filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(v) On 01.12.2022 learned Trial Court took up the application for injunction as filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as filed by the defendants. By a common order dated 01.12.2022 learned Trial Court disposed of both the aforementioned two applications and modified the earlier ad interim order of injunction by directing both the plaintiff and the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to the nature, character and possession of the suit property till disposal of the said suit.

(vi) The plaintiff felt aggrieved and thus preferred Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 2022 before the learned First Appellate Court. By the impugned order the First Appellate Court, however, dismissed the said appeal affirming the order of status quo as passed by the learned Trial Court.

5. In course of his submission Mr. Shibashish Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner in virtual mode submits before this Court that both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court while passing the order dated 01.12.2022 as well as the impugned order respectively failed to visualize that plaintiff in settled possession of the suit property which is evident from the latest records of right as has been filed before the learned Trial Court. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner that both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court did not consider at all that though the plaintiff is the recorded owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance which has not yet been set aside by any Court of law, the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit property is prima facie perfect and, therefore, the defendants has got no right to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property. It is further contended by Mr. Ghosh that both the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court ought not to have passed an