IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a mandatory injunction, emphasizing the necessity of a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favoring the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Borah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bikrom Singha Lahkar, respondent-in-person.

2. This appeal, under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 06.04.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.1052/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.619/2023. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 06.04.2024, the learned trial court had granted temporary mandatory injunction and directed the present appellants to remove the boundary wall from the front side of the building of the respondent herein this case and open up the right of way for free movement of the respondent of this case his vehicles for ingress and egress to his building standing over the Schedule- ‘B’ land which is part of Schedule-‘A’ land mentioned in the application.

Background Facts:-

3. The background facts leading to filing of present appeal are adumbrated herein below:-

The respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a Title Suit being T.S. No.619/2023, before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arraigning the present appellants as defendants and also one Sarojini Das, mother of respondent No.2. as respondent No.3, though she had already died before institution of the Title Suit, on 6.7.2023, and also arraigning Amulya Das, son of Late Lalit Chandra Das, Sri Bhaskar Bhusan Das, son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Bijoy Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Kishore Das, son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Son of Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Sri Jamini Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Pranab Das, son of Late Narayan Das, Sri Rudreswar Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, Sri Bankim Chandra Das, son of Late Narayan Chandra Das, all are resident of Pandu, Sadilapur, P.S. Jalukbari, Guwahati-12, as pro- forma defendant Nos.5 to 13 in the said suit.

The case of the respondent is that he had purchased 4 kathas of land, more fully described in Schedule- ‘B’ of the plaint, out of the Schedule-‘A’, land covered by Dag No.493 of K.P. Patta No.144 of Village Sadilapur, under Mouza Jalukbari in the district of Kamrup(M), Guwahati, from the legal heirs of the said Seniram Das, vide deed No.7690, dated 05.8.2019. Later on, he also had purchased remaining 1 katha land out of the schedule-‘A’ land morefully described in the Schedule-‘C’ of the plaint and an agreement for sale was executed on 26.2.2019, by the vendors of the present respondent. Thereafter, obtaining NOC dated 27.10.2017 and a General Power of Attorney dated 12.09.2018, in respect of the entire Schedule-A land comprising the Schedule B and C land empowering the present respondent to develop the said land and to construct a RCC building thereon. Accordingly, the respondent obtained permission for construction of RCC building and had constructed two RCC structures over the portion of Schedule ‘A’ land. At the eastern side of Schedule ‘A’ land, the proforma defendants owns and possess jointly a plot of land measuring 3 Katha 18 lechas covered by dag No.691 (new) 493 (old) and K.P. Patta No.306. The proforma defendants have right, title and interest over the said land by way of inheritance from the original pattadar Kaliram Das.

On receipt of a notice, dated 24.9.2021, the present respondent and the proforma defendants came to know about the mutation order dated 8.9.2015 and 3.2.2020 in favour of the present appellants on the strength of a gift deed executed by one Mouram Koibarta in favour of the predecessor of the present appellants. The present respondent as well as the proforma defendants had filed a Revenue Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of mutation of the present appellants. On 18.08.2023 at around 5 AM the present appellant No.3 along with 20 people and labourers trespassed in the Schedule ‘A’ land and the present respondent had also lodged complaint b