Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Smti Dipanwita Biswas, D/o-Late Utpal Mazumdar – Appellant
Versus
Sri Sanjoy Kumar Majumdar, S/o-Late Kalyan Kumar Majumder – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition(I/O) No.382/2024
Decided on : 04-10-2024
Injunction - Property Rights - Article 227, CPC Sections 39, 151 - The court discussed the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions, emphasizing the necessity of a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision to deny the injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of her rights over a plot of land, claiming inheritance from the original owner. A temporary injunction was granted to prevent construction by the respondents, which was later set aside by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that while the petitioner had a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favored the respondents, who had already begun construction and would not cause irreparable harm to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in setting aside the temporary injunction granted to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of a prima facie case alone is insufficient for granting an injunction; the petitioner must also demonstrate irreparable loss and that the balance of convenience favors her.
Result: The revision petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Dipanwita Biswas impugning the order dated 21.08.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh in Misc. Appeal No. 03/2024, whereby the temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner, by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh on 04.04.2024 in Misc. (J) Case No. 04/2024 was set aside.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of her right, title and interest over Schedule-A plot of land along with permanent injunction. The suit was registered as T.S. No. 02/2024 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh.
4. The case of the petitioner projected in her plaint is that one Sudhangshu Bimal Majumdar was the absolute owner of the plot of land measuring 1 Katha covered by Dag No. 130 of Periodic Patta No. 69 of Tinkunia Ward, Mouza and District Dibrugarh over which he had constructed an Assam Type house for residential purpose for him and his other family members. The said property is described in the Scheduled-A of the plaint.
5. It is contended by the petitioner in her Plaint that at the time of his death, Late Sudhangshu Bimal Majumdar left his wife, Parul Majumdar, his four sons, namely, Kalyan Majumdar, Chiru Majumdar, Utpal Majumdar and Adhir Majumdar and two daughters, namely, Jharna Majumdar and Aruna Biswas as his legal heirs. All of the aforesaid legal heirs except Jharna Majumdar had expired.
6. It is also contended by the petitioner in her Plaint that after the death of the Sudhangshu Bimal Majumdar, the suit property devolved upon his legal heirs in the ration of 1/7th share each. However, it is also contended by the petitioner in her plaint that as whereabouts of two of the legal heirs of Sudhangshu Bimal Majumdar, were not known to anyone and as the wife and daughter of Sudhangshu Bimal Majumdar, namely, Parul Majumdar and Jharna Majumdar died, the surviving legal heirs, shared 1/3rd of share of the suit property amongst themselves.
7. It is contended that the present petitioner is the daughter of the Utpal Majumdar and Kalyan Majumdar was the father of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Utpal Majumdar was the father of respondent No. 3.
8. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was under general believe of being legal heir of one of the remaining sons of Late Sudhangshu Bimal Majumdar, she would be entitled to 1/3rd share of the Schedule-A land. However, she was shocked to know that the Schedule-A land was mutated in the names of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by Mutation Order dated 29.06.2022. It is also contended that the respondents have demolished the Assam Type building which was initially built by Late Sudhangshu Bimal Majumdar and have started construction an RCC building over the said plot of land.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after filing of the aforementioned Title Suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code praying for an issuance of temporary injunction against the respondents for restraining them from carrying out any permanent construction over Schedule-A land. The said Misc. Case was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 04/2024.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the Trial Court had, by its order dated 04.04.2024, passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 04/2024 allowed the applicati
The court established that for a temporary injunction, a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience must all be satisfied.
The court clarified that to obtain a temporary injunction, a party must demonstrate irreparable harm, a favorable balance of convenience, and a prima facie case even without physical possession.
Merely having prima-facie case would not entitle an applicant to an injunction. The applicant has to satisfy all the three ingredients.
Court could not have come into finding that there was a balance of convenience in not granting an injunction.
A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish lawful possession, a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
A temporary injunction cannot be granted without discussing essential principles, and a property owner cannot be restrained from using their property without a strong prima facie case.
Suppression of revenue proceedings setting aside relied-upon mutation constitutes unclean hands, disentitling temporary injunction; High Court under Article 227 will not re-appreciate evidence or int....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
