##PAGE1##

Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

&

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury

FMA No. 1715 of 2025

Hisabuddin Sk.

Vs.

Murshed Ali Seikh alias Mursid Seikh

and others

For the appellant : Mr. Partha Pratim Roy,

Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal,

Ms. Poulami Chakraborty, Advs.

For the respondent nos. 1 and 2. : Mr. Manas Kumar Das,

Mr. Prabal Das, Advs.

For the respondent nos. 3 to 30. : Mr. Sudip Das,

Mr. Asraf Mondal, Advs.

Heard on : May 19, 2026.

Judgment on : May 19, 2026.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The present challenge has been preferred against the grant of

ad interim injunction in a partition suit instituted by the

plaintiffs/respondents.

2

2. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 1/appellant argues

that the vendors of the parties had sold demarcated portions of the

original plot.

3. At least insofar as the present defendant no. 1/appellant is

concerned, it is submitted that by a transfer deed, a specific portion

of the property was transferred to the appellant.

4. In terms of the said allocation, the appellant, it is submitted, has

been making construction on the suit property in accordance with a

valid sanction plan.

5. Despite having constructed up to the ground floor level, the

plaintiffs/respondents, at such belated stage, obtained the impugned

order of injunction to the detriment of the appellant.

6. It is submitted that the appellant may be permitted to raise

construction in terms of the sanction plan with the undertaking that

the construction so made shall be demolished in the event a decree

is passed in favour of the appellant or if the concerned portion of the

suit property, over which such construction is being raised, is

allocated to any other party.

7. In view of arguable questions having been raised, we admit the

appeal, to be heard on the grounds taken in the memorandum of

3

appeal, and take up the appeal itself for hearing by dispensing with

all formalities, since the questions involved are short.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents

controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and

submits that it would be evident from the copy of the sanction plan,

which is annexed to the compilation submitted in Court by the

appellant, that the sanction has spent its force on March 31, 2026.

As such, at present, there is no valid sanction plan.

9. Secondly, it is argued that the appellant is seeking to raise

construction over the better portion of the joint property, over every

inch of which all the co-sharers have title.

10. It is pointed out that the learned trial Judge took into

consideration the fact that even in the transfer deed of the appellant,

the boundaries of the plots were mentioned only as agricultural lands

without any specific mention of the plot numbers or the names of the

owners of the adjoining lands and as such, the case of the defendant

no. 1/appellant that a specific demarcated portion was sold to the

defendant/appellant was disbelieved prima facie by the learned trial

Judge.

11. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find it to be well-

reasoned.

4

12. The learned trial Judge took into consideration the respective

arguments of the parties and also took note of the fact that prima

facie it appears that the boundaries of the plots as mentioned in the

title deed of the appellant were mentioned only as agricultural lands,

without any specific plot numbers or names of the adjoining owners,

thereby creating a cloud as to whether a specific demarcated portion

was actually sold to the appellant.

13. That apart, since the respondents argue that the appellant is

making construction over the better portion of the suit property,

unless such issue is resolved by trial, it would not be prudent to

permit further construction to be made by the appellant at this stage.

14. Certain photographs are handed over in Court, although those

were apparently not a part of the trial court records.

15. However,