Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 800 (CAL)

Prasanta Kumar Ghosh v. Basudeb Ghosh

2008-08-07

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya

body2008
JUDGMENT: 1. THE plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant and his men and agents from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property without due process of law. A decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant, his men and agents from creating any disturbance, annoyance, inconvenience or obstruction in the plaintiff's peaceful possession in schedule "b" property, was also prayed for. In such a suit the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction inter alia praying for an interim injunction for restraining the defendant/opposite party, his men and agents from dispossessing the plaintiff from the "b" schedule property without due process of law and also from causing any nuisance, disturbance, obstruction and/or from causing any interference with the petitioner's peaceful use and occupation and enjoyment of the "b" schedule property for running his business therein till the disposal of the suit. An ad interim order of injunction in similar terms was also prayed for in the said application. On 28th April, 2004, the Learned Trial Judge passed an ad interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the parties in respect of the "b" schedule property till 27th May, 2004. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said ad interim order of injunction passed by the Learned Trial Judge, the defendant filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 60 of 2004 before the Learned Additional District Judge, fast Track Court No. 4 at Barasat. The said appeal was ultimately allowed on contest on 29th May, 2008. Thus, the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge on 28th April, 2004, was vacated. The propriety of the said order is under challenge in this application under article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. Let me now consider as to how far the Learned Appeal Court was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. Heard Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanyal, Learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considered the materials-onrecord including the order impugned. 2. ON perusal of the plaint as well as the application for injunction, this Court finds that the plaintiff claimed that he is in permissive possession in the "b" schedule property. The plaintiff alleged that such permission was granted jointly by his father and his uncle. Sanyal, Learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considered the materials-onrecord including the order impugned. 2. ON perusal of the plaint as well as the application for injunction, this Court finds that the plaintiff claimed that he is in permissive possession in the "b" schedule property. The plaintiff alleged that such permission was granted jointly by his father and his uncle. The plaintiff further claims that his father and his uncle are the joint owners of the "a" schedule property of which "b" schedule property is a part. In support of the plaintiff's claim for his possession of the suit property, the plaintiff has annexed various receipts showing collection of periodical payments on account of service charges by his father who is an admitted co-owner of the suit premises. The plaintiff has also produced electricity bills and the trade licence issued by the Municipal Authority etc. in support of the plaintiff's claim for possession in respect of the "b" schedule property. While disposing of the said appeal, the learned Appeal Court came to the conclusion that the description of the "b" schedule property as given in the plaint does not tally with the description of the property as mentioned in the receipts issued by the father of the petitioner. The Learned Appeal Court though held that in view of the preliminary decree passed in the partition suit being Title Suit no. 13 of 2003 the father of the petitioner is a co-sharer in respect of the suit property but, still then, the Learned Appeal Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove a prima facie case in support of his prayer for injunction. The learned Appeal Court also held that the balance of convenience and inconvenience is also against the grant of injunction. For examining as to whether the plaintiff succeeded in making out a prima facie case, this Court has carefully considered the case made out by the plaintiff in his application for temporary injunction. I have already indicated above that the plaintiff claims that he is in permissible possession in "b" schedule property and such permission was granted jointly by his father and his uncle. I have already indicated above that the plaintiff claims that he is in permissible possession in "b" schedule property and such permission was granted jointly by his father and his uncle. But the documents which were produced by the plaintiff i. e. the receipts, in my view, cannot be regarded as a proof of such permission which was allegedly granted jointly by his father and his uncle inasmuch as none of such receipts was issued either jointly or severally by the defendant. The petitioner has failed to produce any single receipt showing collection of service charges from the petitioner by his uncle. Thus, from those documents this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his prima facie claim for grant of permission jointly by his father and his uncle. 3. THE other documents such as trade licence, electricity bills etc. which were produced by the petitioner no doubt are prima facie evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim for possession in the suit premises, but the Court cannot assess the legality of such possession of the petitioner from these documents which are not documents of title. It is settled law that the Court of equity cannot protect illegal possession of a party by grant of injunction and as such, before granting injunction, the Court must be satisfied that the party applying for such injunction is in lawful possession in the suit property. Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a letter written by the bank addressed to the petitioner's firm wherein the bank confirmed that the uncle of the petitioner stood as a guarantor for obtaining loan by the petitioner for his business which he is carrying on in the suit premises under the name and style of M/s. Auto India. 4. THE said document no doubt gives some indication that at least there was some implied consent of the uncle of the petitioner for permitting him to possess at least a part of the suit property and as such, this Court at this stage cannot hold that the plaintiff has failed to make out a triable issue in the said suit. THE said document no doubt gives some indication that at least there was some implied consent of the uncle of the petitioner for permitting him to possess at least a part of the suit property and as such, this Court at this stage cannot hold that the plaintiff has failed to make out a triable issue in the said suit. But even if I hold that the plaintiff has succeeded prima facie in proving his possession in the suit property but still then the dispute with regard to the extent of the area in his occupation cannot be resolved even prima facie with reference to the documents which were filed by the petitioner in connection with the said injunction proceeding. Mr. Sanyal, Learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite party submits that the assessment register of the municipal records shows that the petitioner is in possession of a portion of the "b" schedule property measuring about 8 ft. by 20 ft. Mr. Sanyal, thus submits that there is no material-on-record to show that the petitioner is in possession of 2400 sq. ft. of land appertaining to "b" schedule property. In my view Mr. Sanyal is right in his submission that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is in possession of entire "b" schedule property but fact remains that the petitioner's possession in respect of a part of the "b" schedule property cannot be denied. This Court also cannot take any judicial notice of the municipal record at this stage, as admittedly the said document has not yet been disclosed by the opposite party in any of his pleading. Under such circumstances, this Court disposes of this revisional application by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to their possession in the "b" schedule property till the disposal of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. 5. THE defendant is directed to file his affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction within three weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed by the petitioner within a week thereafter. The learned Trial Judge is, thus, requested to expedite disposal of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction as early as possible but preferably within four weeks thereafter. The revisional application, thus, stands disposed of. The impugned order, thus, stands set aside. Reply, if any, be filed by the petitioner within a week thereafter. The learned Trial Judge is, thus, requested to expedite disposal of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction as early as possible but preferably within four weeks thereafter. The revisional application, thus, stands disposed of. The impugned order, thus, stands set aside. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.