Dismissed¶18

Arati Rajbanshi and Anr. v. Sahadeb Ghosh and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Sept 2024CO/388/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 Constitution of India; civil revision C.O. 388 of 2024; Calcutta High Court; Biswajit Basu; co-sharer entitled to raise construction on joint property in his possession; partition suit; injunction restraining defendants from disturbing possession; construction without sanction plan; complaint to Municipal Corporation; Commissioner's report separate demarcated possession; undertaking not to claim equity; remove construction if outside allotted share in final decree; Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kandi Murshidabad; Partition Suit No. 122 of 2023; dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without any order as to costs. ¶18

Arati Rajbanshi and Anr. Vs Sahadeb Ghosh and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Judge's permission to defendant no. 1 to execute construction work on the portion of the joint property under his possession offends the subsisting injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

A co-sharer, to the extent of his share, is entitled to raise construction over the joint property which is under his possession.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The impugned permission does not offend the order of injunction, as the parties are in possession of specific portions of the suit property.

¶16

Key takeaways

If the permission is used to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs, they are at liberty to take appropriate steps in the suit.ratio¶16
As regards the construction work going on without sanction plan, it is open to the plaintiffs to lodge a complaint with the concerned Municipal Corporation.ratio¶15
For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned does not call for any interference.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction), single judge Biswajit Basu, J., dismisses C.O. No. 388 of 2024, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated December 13, 2023 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kandi, District: Murshidabad, in Partition Suit No. 122 of 2023, whereby defendant no. 1 was permitted to execute construction work on the portion of the joint property under his possession. Holding: a co-sharer, to the extent of his share, is entitled to raise construction over the joint property under his possession; the permission does not offend the injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession, since a Commissioner's report shows separate demarcated possession and the permission rested on defendant no. 1's undertaking not to claim equity and to remove the construction if it falls outside his allotted share in the final decree; if the permission is used to disturb the plaintiffs' possession, they are at liberty to take appropriate steps in the suit; regarding construction without sanction plan, the plaintiffs may lodge a complaint with the concerned Municipal Corporation. Dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶1

ML44 September sandip Ct. 19 02.09.2024

¶2

In The High Court At Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction

¶3

C.O. No. 388 of 2024

¶4

Bhagirath Rajbanshi, since deceased, represented by his heirs and legal representatives, namely, Arati Rajbangshi & Anr.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Sahadeb Ghosh & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Amrita Lal Dhar, Ms. Reema Coomar, Mr. Tanmoy Saha … For the petitioners.

¶8

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

The order dated December 13, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kandi, District: Murshidabad, in Partition Suit No. 122 of 2023 , is under challenge.

¶10

The petitioners are the plaintiffs of the connected partition suit.

¶11

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has allowed the prayer of the defendant no. 1 to execute construction work on the portion of the joint property which is under his possession.

¶12

Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs are enjoying an order of injunction restraining the defendants not to disturb their possession over the suit property; during the subsistence of such an order of injunction, the learned Trial Judge should not have permitted the defendant no.1 to carry out such construction work over the suit property, particularly when such construction work is going on without any sanction plan.

¶13

¶14

Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, perused the materials on record.

¶15

It appears from the order impugned that there is one Commissioner’s report in the record which depicts separate demarcated possession of the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 in the suit property; besides, the learned Trial Judge, considering the undertaking of the said defendant that if the permission as prayed for, is granted, he would not claim any equity in future and in the event in the final decree, the constructed portion does not fall within his allotted share, he would remove the same, has granted the said permission. So far the allegation that the defendant no.1 is carrying out the construction work without the sanction plan is concerned, it is always open for the plaintiffs to lodge a complaint with the concerned Municipal Corporation.

¶16

A co-sharer, to the extent of his share, is entitled to raise construction over the joint property which is under his possession. The impugned permission is not offending the order of injunction as the parties are in possession of specific portion of the suit property; however, in the event the permission is used to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs, they are liberty to take appropriate steps in the suit.

¶17

The order impugned, for the aforesaid reasons, does not call for any interference.

¶18

C.O. 388 of 2024 therefore is dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶19

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶20

¶21

(Biswajit Basu, J.)

Arati Rajbanshi and Anr. v. Sahadeb Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arati Rajbanshi and Anr. v. Sahadeb Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswajit Gharami Vs Arobinda Sardar and Ors.

Sri Gurucharan Mahato Vs Sri Bipadtaran Mahato and Ors.

Sri Sitaram Roy Vs Sri Babu Manna and Ors.

Minati Jhulki Vs Nitai Jhulki and Ors.

Swapan Bhowmick Vs Sachindra Mohan Dhar and Ors.

M/S. Sothern Cooling Tower Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.