A court must ascertain possession before granting an injunction; otherwise, the order may be deemed irrational and unreasonable, especially in cases involving unregistered agreements.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. BD Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr. AZ Ahmed, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bongaigaon in Misc.(J) Case No.82/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.79/2024 by allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code.

3. It is seen that vide the impugned order dated 29.11.2025, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bongaigaon (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘learned Trial Court’) directing the appellants herein who are the defendants, their men, agents etc. were directed not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land till the disposal of the main suit and further directed both the sides to maintain status-quo in respect to the suit land.

4. A question arises in the instant proceedings as to whether this Court is required to interfere with the said injunction order, which is a discretionary order passed in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. The law in that regard is well settled that an order of injunction passed by the Court of the first instance ought not to be interfered with sans, such discretion suffers from perversity, unreasonableness, irrationality and is contrary to the well settled principles for grant of an injunction. In the backdrop of the above parameters of the settled position of law, this Court would like to deal with the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

5. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 79/2024 against the appellants who were the Defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they were before the learned Trial Court.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff in the suit that a plot of land ad measuring 3 bighas, which is more specifically described in Schedule A to the plaint is the subject matter of the said suit. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the said suit land. It was also mentioned that the defendant No.1, since the date of the purchase permitted the plaintiff to remain in possession over the said suit land as a caretaker and the plaintiff, accordingly, possessed the said suit land by plantation of vegetables, orchards and sometimes by cultivating jute cultivation. In the year 2022, the defendant No.1 expressed her willingness to transfer the said Schedule suit land. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 in the month of October 2022, and it was agreed to that the suit land would be sold at a consideration of Rs.1,26,00,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.42,00,000/- per bigha.

7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 10.10.2022, an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was paid to the defendant No.1 in presence of witnesses. Subsequently, the plaintiff further went to the defendant No.1 and offered another amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as the second installment and requested the defendant No.1 to sign the application form for land sale permission and also to provide the necessary required documents for the purpose of application of the land sale document permission. The defendant No.1 replied that she would need the money in eight/nine months. The plaintiff re