IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

C.O. 2799 of 2025

Lakshmi Gayen & Ors.

Vs.

Rina Rani Jodder Raptan

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarak Nath Halder

….. advocate

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Abhijit Paul

Mr. Prithwiraj Biswas

Ms. Indrani Das

…advocates

Heard on : 05.08.2025 and 13.08.2025

Judgment on : 21.08.2025

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the

instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated June 18, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, 3rd Court at Basirhat in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2024 reversing the order dated August 29, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2^nd

Court at Basirhat in Title Suit No. 161 of 2023.

2. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction being Title Suit No. 161 of

2023. In such suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) praying for temporary injunction. The learned Trial Judge, by an order dated 29.08.2024, allowed the prayer for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved by such order, the opposite party preferred a Misc. Appeal being no. 22 of 2024 and the learned Judge of the Appellate Court, by an order dated June 18, 2025 allowed the Miscellaneous Appeal thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.

3. The case made out by the petitioner in the plaint and the injunction application is that the suit plots being LR Plot Nos. 890, 898 and 901 originally belonged to Shibani Joddar who inducted the predecessor of the petitioner namely Tapan Gayen as bargadar in the suit property. Tapan Gayen had been possessing the suit property as bargadar and delivering the share of produce of the suit land to the landlord. The name of Tapan Gayen has been recorded in the L.R. Record of Rights as “Bargadar”. Tapan Gayen died leaving behind him surviving the petitioners as his heirs who inherited the “Barga” right in the suit land and have been possessing the same. Shibani Joddar died leaving behind some legal heirs who have shifted to Bangladesh for which the petitioners could not deliver the share of produce to the landowners. The opposite party is a stranger to the suit property and is disturbing, interfering with the possession of the petitioners and threatening to dispossess the petitioners and for such reason the petitioners were compelled to file the instant suit.

4. The opposite party contended the application for injunction by filing a written objection denying the material allegations contained in the said application. The case made out by the opposite party is that Bipin Behari Gayen was the original owner of the suit land and upon his death his son Binoy Gayen and four daughters namely Charubala Gayen, Kumodinin Mondal, Tukhuri Mondal and Shibani Joddar became the joint owners. Binoy died leaving behind his son Tapan Gayen. Tapan Gayen is the nephew (brother’s son) of Shibani Joddar and, therefore, he is not entitled to cultivate the suit property as “Bargadar”. Tapan died leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs and heiresses. It is the further case of the opposite party that the petitioners and the opposite party are co-sharers.

5. The learned trial judge by an order dated August 29, 2024 restrained the defendant/opposite party from dispossessing the plaintiffs/petitioners from the suit property till the disposal of the suit. On a miscellaneous appeal being preferred, the learned judge of the appellate court, by the impugned judgment and order, allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned trial judge.

6. Mr. Halder, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have inherited the “Barga” right from their predecessor. He contended that the petitioner no. 2 applied for recording his name as a bargadar upon the death of his father namely Tapan Gayen. He con