Joint family property laws establish that stranger purchasers cannot claim joint possession without acting on a valid legal foundation.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1.This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the judgement and order dated 8th April, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nadia, Nabadwip in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02 of 2024 affirming the judgement and order dated 30^th January, 2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabadwip, Nadia in Title Suit No. 20 of 2021.

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed an application for temporary injunction. The learned trial judge by an order dated January 30, 2024 rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Challenging such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 2024. The learned Additional District Judge, Nabadwip, Nadia by a judgement and order dated April 8, 2025 dismissed the said miscellaneous appeal. Being aggrieved by such judgement and order, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the civil revisional application.

3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the property is a joint family property and the opposite party no.1 is a stranger purchaser. He further submits that since the opposite party/transferee of a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family is not a member of the family, the opposite party no.1 is not entitled to joint possession or enjoyment of the property with the petitioner. In support of such contention he places reliance upon the decisions of the Co- ordinate Benches in the case of Anukul Chandra Sadhukhan Vs. Ajit Kumar Sadhukhan reported at AIR 2004 (Cal) 170 and Ashim Ranjan Das Vs. Bimala Ghosh reported at AIR 1992 (Cal) 44.

4. The petitioner filed the suit under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act . It is the specific case of the petitioner that the suit property originally belonged to one Saroj Kumar Bandyopadhyay who died leaving behind his wife, four sons and two daughters. Thereafter his wife and one of the daughters died in issue less condition for which the property was inherited by the plaintiff along with his three brothers and one sister having 1/5^th share each. The said Saroj Kumar Bandopadhyay executed a deed of family settlement being no. 238/1980 but such deed was not acted upon. After the expiry of Saroj Kumar Bandopadhyay one deed of gift was executed being no. 199/1991 by his wife along with her three sons in favour of her another son Dilip Kumar Bandyopadhyay showing that each one of them had 1/5th share in the suit property and they did not have more than 1/7^th undivided share at that point of time. Such deed of gift was based upon the settlement being no. 238/1980 which was never acted upon. Subsequently Dilip Kumar Bandyopadhyay gifted 1 1/4 decimal in favour of Swadesh and Swapan Kumar Bandyopadhyay by way of registered gift deed being no. 451/2001. Dilip Kumar Bandyopadhyay also gifted 2.925 decimals in favour of Pinaki Ranjan Bandopadhyay by way of registered gift deed being no. 70/2005. Pinaki Ranjan Bandyopadhyay thereafter sold 2.925 decimals in favour of the proforma defendant no.2 by way of a registered sale deed being no. 1032/2005. Alpana Mukherjee, who was a daughter of Swaroj Kumar Bandyopadhyay sold her undivided share in favour of the proforma defendant no.2 by way of a registered sale deed being no. 632/2012. Swadesh Bandopadhyay gifted his undivided share in favour of the plaintiff by way of a registered deed of gift being no. 1108/2017. It is the further case in the plaint that the defendant no.1/opposite party herein is a stranger purchaser in a Hindu undivided property who purchased two decimals of land from Dilip Kumar Bandopadhyay by way of a registered sale deed being no. 99/2005.

5. Petitioner contended that Dilip Kumar Bandyopadhyay did not have any right over two decimals of land at the time of execution of such deed and alleg