IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar F.M.A.T. No.172 of 2024 IA No: CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 3 of 2024 Mr. Shuvendra Mullick -Vs-

Mr. Indranil Mullick and others For the Appellant : Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Prantik Garai For the Respondents : Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee Mr. Ayan Dutta Ms. Debjani Sengupta Mr. Rajib Mullick Ms. Ayantika Saha Heard concluded on : 22.01.2025 Judgment on : 10.02.2025 Uday Kumar, J.: -

1. The prayer of appellant /plaintiff for discontinuation of the operation of the CCTV cameras installed inside the dwelling house with immediate effect made under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Title Suit No. 530 of 2024, was rejected by the Learned Judge, VIIIth Bench, City Civil Court on 4th April, 2024. This order is impugned in this appeal.

2. Late Gora Chand Mallick, the father of appellant/plaintiff and respondent/ defendants had settled at the Mullick Bhaban, his double storied dwelling house, at 9/1/1A, Khelat Ghosh Lane, under Jorabagan Police Station, in a private trust for the enjoyment of his sons, by executing a trust deed, which was lying in the custody of respondents.

3. Primarily, the name of appellant was not inducted in the said trust deed. Later, his name was incorporated therein after modification and rectification of the earlier deed by devising three (03) registered deeds executed by Late Gora Chanda Mallick on 8th December 2004, with the intention to induct the name of the appellant as a co-trustee and to accredit his position in the trust. Accordingly,the north-eastern corner on the first floor and the south-western corner on the second floor of the undivided dwelling house i.e., Mallick Bhaban, were allocated to the appellant. Both, the appellant and the respondents have been residing peacefully in the respective portion allocated to them in the house as a co-trustee, since then. The appellant and his wife were living there while his son Souvanik Mallick was residing abroad in connection with his job.

4. Subsequently, in 2022, the respondents decided to install dome shaped surveillance CCTV cameras in and around the suit property for the purpose of keeping vigil on the precious collections and for theprotection and security of valuable property and rare antique pieces, preserved in the dwelling house, but they did not communicate this decision to the appellant.

5. Consequently, a total nine cameras with motion detection features were installed therein, out of which five (05) were installed in the interior portion of the dwelling house allocated to the appellant at the first and second floor, without his or his son’s consent. These cameras were focused at the door, windows and interior of the appellant’s share, intentionally to keep vigil over the appellant’s day-to-day activity, amounting to threat on his right to privacy. In addition to that, the appellant had no access or control over those surveillance cameras, their records, contents and management to verify the recordings.

6. The appellant became aggrieved by the installation of the surveillance cameras in the interior portion of the dwelling house because it was causing hindrance in his unbridled right for enjoyment of his propertyas a co-trustee. He felt that such act of the respondents was detrimental to the appellant’s right to privacy. As such, the appellant conveyed his concern to the respondents, but they did not pay any heed to his dissent.

7. Therefore, he was compelled to inform this matter to local police station at Jorabagan by filing a letter of complaint on 1st November, 2023, upon which, the police visited there and advised the respondents to maintain peace and tranquillity by not causing any annoyance to the appellant. But said advice was in vain, as the respondents continued to keep those cameras inside the property. So, the appellant approached the local poli