Dismissed¶26

Dipak Das and Anr. v. Asim Kumar Hansda and Ors.

Calcutta HC14 Jan 2026FMA/1716/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; temporary injunction; status quo; maintainability of partition suit; adverse possession pleaded in written statement; attempted ouster; co-sharer/co-ownership; shares delineated in plaint; prima facie case; Order XLI Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure; F.M.A. 1716 of 2025; CAN 1 of 2025; Dipak Das v. Asim Kumar Hansda; Shaktipada Das; interim status quo order upheld; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; trial court to decide suit uninfluenced by appellate observations.

What did the court decide?

Pleadings of parties have to be harmoniously construed as a whole; isolated excerpts cannot be taken out of context to examine the nature of the pleadings. ¶16

Dipak Das and Anr. Vs Asim Kumar Hansda and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the partition suit itself is maintainable, given the plaint plea (paragraph 3) that the defendants' father forcibly possessed a portion of the suit property and the written-statement claim (paragraph 11) of adverse possession. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Pleadings of parties have to be harmoniously construed as a whole; isolated excerpts cannot be taken out of context to examine the nature of the pleadings.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Paragraph 3 read with paragraph 4 of the plaint indicates that Shaktipada Das, father of the defendants/appellants, was a co-sharer of the suit property, upon whose demise the defendants/appellants have inherited his holding jointly.

¶20

Key takeaways

The averment in paragraph 3 of the plaint regarding Shaktipada having forcibly possessed a particular portion is in the nature of a pleading of attempted ouster and does not per se deny his title as co-sharer.ratio¶21
Since the very premise of the partition suit is that the defendants are co-owners and their specific shares are delineated in paragraph 4 of the plaint, it cannot be said at this juncture that the partition suit is not maintainable.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (F.M.A. 1716 of 2025, Dipak Das and another v. Asim Kumar Hansda and others) against an interim order directing maintenance of status quo in a partition suit, dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Held: (i) pleadings must be harmoniously construed as a whole and isolated excerpts cannot be taken out of context; (ii) plaint paragraph 3 read with paragraph 4 shows the defendants' father Shaktipada Das was a co-sharer whose holding devolved jointly on the defendants, and the plea of forcible possession of a portion is merely a pleading of attempted ouster that does not per se deny his co-sharer title; (iii) since the very premise of the partition suit is co-ownership with specific shares delineated in the plaint, the suit cannot be said to be unmaintainable at this juncture; (iv) it is well-settled that during pendency of a partition suit the subject property ought to be maintained in statu quo in aid of the final relief, hence the Trial Judge was justified in passing the status quo order and no illegality was found therein. Connected application CAN 1 of 2025 also dismissed; no order as to costs; the Trial Judge was directed to decide the suit independently without being influenced by these observations.

¶1

14^th January, 2026 (AK) 20

¶2

F.M.A. 1716 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

¶3

Dipak Das and another Vs.

¶4

Asim Kumar Hansda and others

¶5

Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee Mr. Salil Kr. Maity Mr. Ayanava Das Mr. Debjit Dutta

¶6

...for the appellants.

¶7

The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby a temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents in a partition suit was allowed, thereby directing both parties to maintain status quo in respect of nature, character and possession of the suit property till disposal of the suit.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the partition suit itself is not maintainable in view of the plaintiffs having pleaded in paragraph no.3 of the plaint that the father of the present defendants, namely Shaktipada Das, used to forcibly possess a portion of the suit property demarcated as schedule A/1 and built a house thereon.

¶9

Learned counsel places reliance on the relevant paragraph, that is, paragraph no.11 of the written statement to show that the defendants/appellants,

¶10

¶11

on the other hand, have claimed adverse possession over the suit property.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellants argues that since the suit for the relief of partition, as framed, is not maintainable in view of the admission of the plaintiffs that the defendants/appellants’ father did not have any title in the property but forcibly possessed the same, the learned Trial Judge erred in law in granting injunction.

¶13

It is contended that the maintainability of the suit is a component of the prima facie case.

¶14

It is further submitted by the appellants that on the facts pleaded, the injunction order could not have been passed, particularly since it has been admitted that already a house has been constructed on a portion of the property by the father of the defendants/appellants.

¶15

On a careful perusal of the plaint, we, however, find that the contentions of the appellants cannot be entirely accepted.

¶16

It is a trite principle that the pleadings of parties have to be harmoniously construed as a whole and isolated excerpts from the same cannot be taken out of context in order to examine the nature of the pleadings.

¶17

Following such principle, paragraph no.3, read with paragraph no.4, of the plaint clearly indicates the

¶18

¶19

plaint case that the father of the

¶20

defendants/appellants, namely, Shaktipada Das was a co-sharer of the suit property, upon whose demise the present defendants/appellants have inherited jointly the property held by Shaktipada Das.

¶21

Insofar as the averment in paragraph no.3 regarding Shaktipada having forcibly possessed a particular portion of the suit property is concerned, the same in the nature of a pleading of attempted ouster and does not per se deny the title of Shaktipada as a co-sharer of the suit property.

¶22

Moreover, since the very premise of the partition suit is that the defendants are co-owners and their specific shares have also been delineated in paragraph no.4 of the plaint, it cannot be said at this juncture that the partition suit is not maintainable.

¶23

In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing an order of status quo, since it is a well-settled proposition of law that during pendency of a partition suit, in aid of the final relief sought, the subject property ought to be maintained in statu quo .

¶24

Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶25

¶26

Hence, FMA 1716 of 2025 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶27

Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025 stands dismissed as well.

¶28

There will be no order as to costs.

¶29

It is made clear that the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the suit, from which the present appeal arises, independently and in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by the observations made herein insofar as the merits of the respective contentions of the parties are concerned.

¶30

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶31

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶32

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Dipak Das and Anr. v. Asim Kumar Hansda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Das and Anr. v. Asim Kumar Hansda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariyali Foods Co. Pvt. Ptd Vs Nabanita Mukherjee Chakraorty and Ors.

Arif Ali Mollah and Anr. Vs Ramaprasad Ghosh and Anr.

Amulya Haldar & Anr. Vs Renukabala Mistri

Hijli Co-Operative Development Society Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hijli Co-Operative Development Society Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

State of West Bengal Represented by the Land Acquisition Collector Hooghly Vs Aniruddha Bandhyopadhyay and Anr.