S.S. Ganguly, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from the order no. 33 passed on 4/11/89 in Title Suit No. 109 of 1989 by the Id. Second Assistant District Judge, Bara-sat. The facts leading to the present appeal may be summarised as follows : Admittedly Plot NO. 111 appertaining to R.S. Khatian to. 38 of Mouza Hridaypur under P. S. Barasat having an areas of 28 decimals belonged to Hariram Nathani and others. Admittedly Haradhan Chatterjee (the predecessor-in-interest of defendants nos. 1 and 2), Gouri Shankar Chatterjee (the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff respondents) and Haridas Chatterjee (the vendor of the defendant-appellant) took settlement of 7 decimals each out of the said disputed plot no. 111 from Hariram Nathani and others. In the recent revisional settlement operations Haradhan's 7 decimals were specifically recorded under Khatian no. 1309, that of Gouri Shankar under Khatian no. 880 and that of Haridas under Khatian no. 1307. Haradhan's 7 decimals were inherited by his son Subodh and his two daughters Rajlakshmi and Pardma Rani from whom the defendants nos. 1 and 2 received it under a deed of gift. Gouri Shankar's 7 decimals descended upon his heirs and legal representatives who are the plaintiff-respondents and the present defendant-appellant acquired the 7 decimals of Haridas Chatterjee by a registered deed of purchase executed on 28/10/83. The appellant started building a pucca house on his purchase of 7 decimals of land when the suit mentioned above was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents for a partition of the disputed plot and also for an injunction restraining the appellant from continuing with the construction of his house. After filing the suit the respondent also made a prayer for temporary injunction which was opposed from the side of the appellant. The points taken in defence appeared to be the following : 1. The appellant purchased demarcated 7 decimals out of the disputed plot and not any share therein. He was not, therefore, a co-sharer of the plaintiff-respondents in respect of the disputed plot no. 21. After his purchase he surrounded his purchased portion by a pucca boundary wall and he has been paying the due of the Government and municipality on account of the same, separately. 2. There was a partition between the original licencees being Haradhan, Gouri Shankar and Haridas a long time ago in terms of which they possesed separate portions of the disputed plot exclusively and separately from each other. The suit for partition, therefore, is bound to fail. 3. The heirs of Gouri Shankar i.e. the plaintiff-respondents transferred their 7 decimals appeataining to Plot No. 111 to an adjoining school being Sushila Bala Devi Adarsha Bidyapith and the said school has been using this land as its play-ground. Thus the plaintiff-respondent has no locus-standi to institute the suit.
(2.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials produced before him the Id. Second Assistant District Judge allowed the respondent's application for temporary injunction. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) It is urged from the side of the appellant that the Id. Judge allowed the respondent's application without properly considering the facts and law involved in the present case.;