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.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The defendant in a partition suit has preferred the instant revisional application against the portion of an order whereby the application of the plaintiff/opposite party for making a pucca construction of a new building on the suit property was allowed. By the self-same order, the defendants/petitioners were permitted to repair their tin shed structure situated on the suit property. The challenge, obviously, has been thrown against the portion of the order whereby the plaintiff/opposite party was permitted to make the pucca building and not the other part of the order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on an order dated January 6, 2023 passed by the learned Trial Judge, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property so far as its nature, character, ownership and possession was concerned, till disposal of the suit. It is submitted that the impugned order, so far as it permits the construction of a pucca building on the suit property by the plaintiff, is clearly violative of the status quo order passed by the learned Trial judge himself.

3. That apart, the defendants/petitioners have challenged the title of the plaintiffs in the suit. It is contended that although given an opportunity, the plaintiff failed to produce the first link in the chain of deeds on the basis of which title is claimed by the plaintiff/opposite party. The plaintiff/opposite party alleges that he has purchased from a vendor, who, in turn, purchased through a link of transfers, originating from a transfer by the father of the defendants/petitioners.

4. However, such purported deed, executed by the father of the petitioners, has not been produced by the plaintiff despite getting such opportunity. Thus, in the absence of prima facie proof of title, the plaintiff could not be permitted to make pucca construction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party submits that at the stage of grant of status quo, the learned Trial Judge came to a prima facie observation that the plaintiff has established his ownership and possession over 25 decimals of land in the suit property. In the impugned order as well, such possession, from the year 1993, has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge.

6. Thus, it is clear that at least the plaintiff is in possession of a substantial portion of the suit property whereas the defendants are in occupation of the other portions.

7. It is contended that the previously prevailing strict legal proposition against construction being permitted to be made by co-sharers on a joint property, as laid down in the judgment of Israil vs. Samser Rahaman , reported at XVIII CWN 176, has since been diluted. In support of such contention, learned counsel cites a coordinate Bench judgment in the matter of Satish Chandra Som & Ors. reported at 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 2 as well as another coordinate Bench judgment in the matter of Sanghati Pal vs. Prakash Adhuryya & Ors., reported at 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 928.

8. Learned counsel submits that the defendants/petitioners would not be affected adversely in any manner since the learned Trial Judge, in the impugned order, has categorically mentioned that the plaintiff/opposi