The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, and the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in property disputes.

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 06.10.2016 delivered in Civil Misc. Appeal No.05 of 2016 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, affirming the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharmanagar in Civil Misc Case No.36 of 2016 [arising from T.S. 15/2015]. By the said order dated 27.09.2016, the Civil Judge issued an interim mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent directing to remove the welding and the gate erected on the path under reference.

2. A brief resume of fact, essential for appreciating the challenge may very shortly be introduced in the beginning. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction. For purpose of reference, the reliefs as urged in the suits are reproduced hereunder:

(a) a decree for declaration that, the plaintiff has the right, title and interest over the suit land specifically described in the schedule given herein below.

(b) a decree for declaration that, the plaintiff has right to enter into his purchased homestead land described in the schedule given here in below through his ingress and egress path and to enjoy his homestead land.

(c) a decree of perpetual injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, agents and any other person claiming through them from creating any obstruction to enter into his purchased homestead suit land and from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land using his ingress and egress path to and from his purchased homestead land specifically described in the schedule given here in below and mandatory/perpetual injunction be passed against the defendants directing them, their men, agents to remove all obstruction if any over the entrance and exit path of the homestead and to keep the said exit and entrance path free and clear for entry and exit of the plaintiff and his men and person to his purchased homestead land specifically described in the schedule given here in below.

3. The schedule as provided in the plaint is also reproduced as the land described in the schedule has been referred in the reliefs as reproduced herein below:

SCHEDULE

All part and parcel of the landed property measuring about 0.238 Acre under Khatian No.3119 Hal Dag No.7188 (0.073 Acre), Hal Dag No.7196 (0.069 Acre), Hal Dag No.7197 (0.096 Acre) corresponding to Sabek Dag No.6247/9534, 6244 & 6245 under Mouza Dharmanagar Town, T.K. Dharmanagar, North Tripura, Sub-Registry Office Dharmanagar, bounded by:

North : Brajendra Banik

South: Ingress egress path and Tarun Singha & others

East : Bankim Chandra Paul’s legal heirs (defendants)

West : Ajoy Dutta & others

Wherein homestead hut, pukur, pukur par.

4. The plaintiff filed one petition along with the suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for passing an interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the welding over the entry and the exit gate on the egress and ingress path of the plaintiff and to remove the erected brick wall on the said path by restoring the status as it was prior to 08.07.2016 and further to keep the said path open for free and clear entry and exit to his purchased homestead land.

5. In the suit being T.S. 15 of 2016 and the said petition being Civil Misc. Case No.36 of 2016 the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff purchased the schedule-land from the legal heirs of Binoy Krishna Paul by the registered sale deed No.1-02293 dated 07.10.2015 on valuable consideration. The said land was the residential property of Binoy Krishna Paul, since deceased, and he used to reside in that house. In the southern side of the said landed property there exists a pathway which Binoy Krishna Paul and his family members used for their ingress and egress from their residential property. The plaintiff after his purchase used the said pathway till 08.07.2016 when the defendants closed the said pathway by