JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present appeal arises against an order of temporary injunction in the form of status quo in respect of nature, character, possession and alienation of the suit property.

2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for partition and obtained the impugned order of injunction on the basis of their averments made in a temporary injunction application filed therein. The injunction application was contested by the defendants by filing written objection. 

3. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit have preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that a registered deed of partition in respect of CS Khatian No. 159 was produced by the defendants before the Trial Court. The flimsy objection thereto, that too, in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs in connection with their injunction application, was a denial on the ground that the said document was manufactured. However, It is argued that till date, no amendment has been sought in the plaint challenging such registered deed.

4. It is argued that the learned Trial Judge overlooked the said registered deed of partition in favour of entries in the records-of-rights and purported information furnished by the the B.L. & L.R.O., indicating that the names of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs were recorded in respect of the suit property.

5. However, learned counsel for the appellants argues, documents pertaining to Mourasi Mukarari Patta granted by some of the original co-sharers, who were parties to the partition deed, in favour of third parties were also produced by the defendants. By dint of such transfers, the said original co- owners lost their title even in their demarcated portions by virtue of the operation of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, since their intermediary rights vested in the State.

6. Learned counsel next contends that even from the documents produced by the respondents, it transpires that the names of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs were recorded in respect of Dag numbers which do not tally with the plot numbers mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and the injunction application.

7. It is submitted that each of the plaintiffs/respondents have claimed a miniscule 108^th share in the suit property but have been favoured with injunction, disproportionately, over the entire suit property, to the gross detriment of the interest of the defendants. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order ought to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, before parting with the matter, also seeks to place reliance on an alleged deed of gift executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondent no. 1 in his favour, wherein the existence of the partition deed relied on by the defendants/appellants is admitted. However, it is candidly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the said document was not a part of the Trial Court records, nor produced before the Trial Court, for which an application under Order XLI Rule 27 has been filed before this Court to bring the said document on record.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents controverts the submissions of the appellants and contends that information received from the B.L. & L.R.O. have been produced to indicate that till date, the names of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Jyotish Chandra Safui is reflected in respect of the suit plots.

10. It is further contended that none of the suit Dag numbers are mentioned in the partition deed produced by the defendants and, as such, it cannot be ascertained whether the said partition deed dislodges the claim of title of the plaintiffs.

11. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents also argues that the suit property has been recorded in the Records of Rights as a water body and efforts are being made by the defendants/appellants to convert the same, due to which there is all the more urgency to grant injunction.