Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is directed against the Order No.8 dated September 24, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barrackpore in Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2010 thereby affirming an Order No.1 dated March 10, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.69 of 2010.
(2.) THE plaintiff / opposite party no.1 herein instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. THE defendant / petitioner herein is contesting the said suit. At the time of filing of the said title suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. THE learned Trial Judge granted interim order of temporary injunction. THEreafter, the defendant / petitioner herein filed a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2010 and the learned Appellate Court disposed of such misc. appeal affirming the order of the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendant no.1 / petitioner herein. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted the said Title Suit No.69 of 2010 praying for the following reliefs:- a) A decree of declaration that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 are the joint owners of the suit property; b) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 and his men and agents from transferring by demarcating and/or handing over the possession of the suit property to any third party in any manner whatsoever; c) For all costs; d) Any other relief/reliefs. At the time of filing of the said suit, the plaintiff prayed for temporary injunction and he also prayed for ad interim injunction. The learned Trial Judge granted ad interim order restraining the defendant no.1 from transferring any defined and demarcated portion of the suit property till March 26, 2010. Being aggrieved by that order, the defendant no.1 preferred the misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2010 and while disposing of the said misc. appeal, the learned Appellate Court has passed the following orders:- At this stage I find nothing to interfere with the order impugned. So the order no.1 dated 10-03-2010 in TS 69/10 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD), 4th Court Sealdah, restraining the appellant from transferring any defined and demarcated portion of the suit property as ad-interim injunction is hereby affirmed. But learned Court below shall dispose of the temporary injunction petition after giving opportunity to the defendant/appellant to file w/o, on its own merit. The Misc. appeal stands dismissed on contest. No order as to costs. LCR be sent down at once along with a copy of this order.
(3.) THE short fact of the plaint case is that the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 are the grantees in respect of the ground as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint under the defendant no.2 under certain terms and conditions. Amongst other terms, the grantees were given the right over the ground jointly and they might possess the ground as per their convenience and even partition might be done. But the grant is redeemable on one months notice upon payment of compensation for the structure, if any and that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act shall not apply in respect of the grant so granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 possessed the property. THE defendant no.1 intended to sell his portion to a third party and at that time, the plaintiff filed the said suit for the reliefs already stated. There is no doubt that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 are possessing the ground under a grant by the defendant no.1 and so, as per terms of the grant, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 have no absolute right to the property. But they may possess the same according to their convenience subject to the terms of the grant governing the land.;