IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Tarak Chakrabortty – Appellant
Versus
Kartick Maji – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.
2. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellant to rectify the defect pointed out by the Additional Stamp Reporter.
3. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant no.1 in a suit for partition against an order of temporary injunction.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant (who is the defendant no.1 in the suit), is a teacher and purchased his share of the suit property by a registered deed.
5. Subsequently permission for conversion of the portion of the suit property, which is in occupation of the defendant no.1/appellant, was obtained duly from the concerned authorities.
6. Thereafter, mutation was also done and sanction plan was obtained by the appellant to make a G+1 construction.
7. After such sanction plan being issued and the construction having commenced and the foundation work having already been completed, the plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed the suit and obtained the impugned order of injunction.
8. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that in the written objection, such facts were clearl
In partition suits, prior permissions and investments by a party can outweigh claims for injunctions, especially when shared property rights are involved.
The court affirmed that modification of an injunction order requires a change in circumstances, which was not established by the defendants, thus upholding the original injunction.
Once permission to change land use has been granted and construction has commenced, the party seeking injunction must prove strong grounds to justify stopping the construction.
A co-owner cannot be permitted to continue with the construction over the undivided property without the consent and concurrence of the other co-owners.
The main legal point established is that a plaintiff must prove joint ownership and possession in a property dispute, and even a co-sharer cannot be injuncted from selling his share of the property.
The court upheld that in partition suits, a party's construction on disputed property contradicts status quo orders unless clear title and urgency are established.
Section 36 of Specific Relief Act vests Court with power to grant injunction at its discretion.
The right to live in safe conditions and the consideration of changes in circumstances during the pendency of a suit were central legal principles established in the judgment.
The court established that in partition suits, a prima facie case and balance of convenience are essential for granting interim injunctions to prevent irreparable harm.
Even a co-sharer may be restrained by temporarily injunction from making construction.
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.