Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 85 (CAL)

Durga Charan Valla v. Madan Mohan Valla

2008-01-21

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2008
Judgment (1) THE propriety of an order of injunction passed by the permanent Lok adalat in a pre-litigation proceeding, being Case No. 101 of 2007 vide Order no. 2 dated 12th June, 2007 is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the defendant/petitioner. (2) THE dispute involved in the said pre-litigation proceeding arose between the grandfather and the grandson concerning possession of the disputed property. (3) ADMITTEDLY, the disputed property belongs to the grandfather. Since the grandson being the petitioner is disturbing possession of the grandfather and is also preventing grandfather from cultivating the disputed property, the grandfather being the opposite party herein, has filed this pre-litigation, proceeding before the permanent Lok Adalat. (4) THE permanent Lok Adalat, after considering the dispute between the parties, passed an interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the possession of the opposite party in respect of portion and/or as the share of the suit land mentioned in the application for injunction. The grandfather/opposite party was also given opportunity to cultivate the suit property as per the sweet will and if any disturbance is caused by the grandson, the grandfather is also given liberty to take police help from the local police station, i. e. Burdwan Police Station. (5) AFTER hearing Mr. Roy, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner (grandson) and Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite party (grandfather) and after considering the materials-on-record, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the order impugned by following the principle that possession always follows the title. (6) ADMITTELY, the grandson being the petitioner herein, does not claim title in the property. As such, the grandson/petitioner cannot be allowed to disturb the possession of rightful owner. (7) IN such view of the matter, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the order impugned. The revisional application is, thus, rejected.