AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
At the time of call, none appears for the respondents to contest the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing ex parte.
In a suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, by the impugned order, an injunction application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was allowed by directing both parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession, nature and character and alienation of the suit property.
Learned counsel for the appellants points out that two deeds were produced at the relevant point of time with the written objection filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2, one of whom is the appellant herein, to establish that one Ismail Tarafdar, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos. 1 and 2, became the owner of land measuring 8.25 decimals out of total 15 decimals of suit land, with specific demarcation, by virtue of a registered deed of sale, being no. 8912 of 1964 and the said predecessor, and thereafter the defendant nos. 1 and 2, have been possessing the same from the date of purchase without any interruption. Ismail Tarafdar, it is also alleged, erected his dwelling house on some portion of the land and some portion was kept vacant. On the demise of Ismail Tarafdar, the defendant nos. 1 and 2, his heirs, became the owners of the said purchased portion of Ismail Tarafdar.
It is also submitted that another deed was produced, bearing no. 8913 of 1964, wherefrom it transpired that on the same day Abdur Rahim, the father of the defendant nos. 3 to 6, also purchased the remaining portion of the suit plot. The property of Abdur Rahim was also demarcated, wherein he erected a dwelling house and after his death his sons, that is, the defendant nos. 3 to 6 inherited the property.
Without taking into consideration the effect of the said title deeds, the learned Trial Judge, it is argued, relied on LR information to grant injunction, on the finding that some triable issues have been raised.
We find from a perusal of the impugned order itself that the learned Trial Judge categorically observed that as per the deeds, which had been filed by the defendants in support of their objection, it transpired that the predecessors-in-interest of the defendant nos.1 and 2 on the one hand, and the defendant nos. 3 to 6 on the other, purchased the suit plots by virtue of the deeds, bearing nos. 8912/1964 and 8913/1964 respectively.
Such position was also corroborated by the Commissioner’s report, which indicated that there is a residential unit and some commercial units standing on the suit property, in consonance with the defendants’ case that their predecessors have erected structures thereon.
By dint of the said two transfers, the ownership of the entire suit property now vests in the defendants/respondents no. 1 and 2 and 3 to 6. Thus, the plaintiffs/respondents prima facie have no title left in the suit property and the partition suit is not maintainable at their behest.
However, the learned Trial Judge, relying solely on the LR information as to a miniscule portion of 03 decimals of suit land standing in the name of Karim Box, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, held that “some triable issues” as to whether the LR record is currently recorded or not was raised and accordingly granted injunction.
On a bare perusal of the said observation of the learned trial Judge, it transpires to be perverse and palpably de hors the law and the facts of the case.
It is well-settled that entries in records of rights cannot override title deeds to establish the title of parties in respect of a property.
In the teeth of two registered title deeds having been produced by the defendants to show that the entire property was transferred to the predecessors-in-interest of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and defendants nos. 3 to 6 and therefore there could not arise prima facie any question of the suit property being joint between the said defendants and the plaintiffs, the learned Trial Judge acted in a perverse manner and contrary to law in holding that triable issues had been raised.
The mechanical manner in which the said observation was arrived at vitiates the entire order.
In fact, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge is quite contrary to the findings of the Trial Court itself.
Thus, we are of the opinion, on the basis of the above observations , that no prima facie case for grant of injunction was at all made out by the plaintiffs/respondents and accordingly, the impugned order of status quo cannot be sustained.
Hence, FMAT No. 120 of 2024 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order, bearing Order no. 15 dated October 10, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court at Baras at, District- North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 60 of 2023, and dismissing the petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents in the said suit. Consequentially, the application for vacating the ad interim injunction, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code, stands disposed of as well.
In view of disposal of the appeal, CAN 1 of 2023 is consequentially disposed of as well.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
I agree.