1

District: Howrah
Before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 3rd Court at Howrah
Title Suit No.

of 2013
Sri Arindam Mullick and Another
Plaintiffs
Versus
Mr. Shaikh Maniruddin and Others
Defendants

An application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The humble petition on behalf of the
Plaintiffs abovenamed most respectfully
Sheweth:
1. Your Petitioners most respectfully state that the Plaintiffs have filed this
suit against the Defendants inter alia for following reliefs:
a) For Leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
b) For a decree of declaration declaring the Plaintiffs share to the extent
of the purchase made by the Deed of Conveyance dated 29.01.2002,
26.08.2004, 10.08.2012 and 27.08.2012;

c) For a decree of declaration declaring transferring and/or conveying

sixteen annah share in respect of A Schedule property by dint of the
purported Deed of conveyance dated 13.06.2011 between Defendant No.
1 and Defendant No. 2, is null and void and the Plaintiffs are not bound
by the purported transfer;
d) For a decree of declaration that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners
of the suit property described in the Schedule B below togetherwith
undivided imparted proportionate share in the land at the three storied
premises situated at J. L. No. 16, R. S. Khatian No. 594, L. R. Khatian
No. 766/2, Dag No.-1234 under Sankarhati 2 No. Gram Panchayat area,
Village and Mouja- Bamunpara, Post Office- Munshirhat, Police StationJagatballavpur, District-Howrah and the Defendants specially Defendant
No. 2 has no right title interest therein;
e) For a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the co-owners in respect of the
suit property described in Schedule A togetherwith undivided imparted
proportionate share in the land within premises situated at J. L. No. 16,
R. S. Khatian No. 594, L. R. Khatian No. 766/2, Dag No.-1234 under
Sankarhati 2 No. Gram Panchayat area, Village and Mouja- Bamunpara,
Post Office- Munshirhat, Police Station-Jagatballavpur, District-Howrah
togetherwith common rights and common areas, common easement
attached to the suit property;

f) For a preliminary decree for partition declaring the Plaintiffs undivided

1/4th share in the A Scheduled property and also declaring 16 Annah
share in the B Schedule property; For a final Decree for partition in term
of the Preliminary Decree in respect of A Scheduled property in the event
failure to amicable partition by the parties in terms of the Preliminary
Decree amicably; In default appointing the Partition Commissioner to
effect partition by metes and bounds according to share of the Plaintiffs
and to pass a final decree in terms of Commissioners report;
g) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and
their men and agents from obstructing the Plaintiffs to enter into the suit
properties mentioned and described in the Schedule below as well as
restraining the Defendants and their men and agents from disturbing,
harassing, creating nuisance and any kind of disturbance to the
Plaintiffs in enjoying their lawful and peaceful possession in the suit
properties mentioned and described in the Schedule A and B below;
h) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and
their men and agents from effecting any additions and/or alterations
and/or new construction in the suit properties mentioned and described
in the Schedule A and B below and/or creating any Third Part interest
and from transferring, assigning and/or parting with possession of the
suit properties described in the Schedules below to stranger/outsider

without the consent of the Plaintiffs illegally and in a high handed

manner;
i) For a Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and
their men and agents to collect rent from the other tenants;
j) For an order of appointment of Receiver;
k) Costs of the suit.
2. The facts and circumstances of the suit are as follows:
i)

That all the piece and parcel of the ground floor and first
floor of the three storied premises, containing a total of 17
(seventeen) shop-rooms among which 9 (nine) shop-rooms in
the ground floor and 8 (eight) shop-rooms in the first floor,
situated in the land and property measuring about 0.02 acre
or 02 Decimal Bastu land within the C. S. Khatian No.594, R. S. Khatian No.- 594, previous L. R. Khatian No.766/2, presently L. R. Khatian Nos. 1769, 1770 and
other(s), Dag No.-1234, Village and Mouja- Bamunpara, J. L.
No. 016, under Sankarhati No. II Gram Panchayat area,
Post

Office-

Munshirhat,

Police

Station-Jagatballavpur,

District-Howrah, more fully mentioned and described in the

Schedule A herein after and all the piece and parcel of the
second floor of three storied premises, containing 2 (two)
shop-rooms, verandah and proportionate share of staircase

from the ground and 150 (One hundred fifty) square feet
open roof plus proportionate share of the remaining open
roof of Schedule A property, which measuring about 146
(One hundred forty six) square feet, more or less, with
construction right over the roof along with all usual
easement rights over the premises, situated in the land and
property measuring about 0.02 acre or 02 Decimal Bastu
land within the C. S. Khatian No.- 594, R. S. Khatian No. 594, previous L. R. Khatian No.-

766/2, present L. R.

Khatian Nos. 1769 and 1770, Dag No.-1234, Village and

Mouja - Bamunpara, J. L. No. 016, under Sankarhati No. II
Gram Panchayat area, Post Office- Munshirhat, Police
Station-Jagatballavpur,

District-Howrah,

more

fully

mentioned and described in the Schedule B (herein after

collectively the A and B Scheduled properties will be
referred to as the suit premises) are the subject matter of
this suit and the suit premises is situated within the
jurisdiction of this Learned Court.
In this regard a copy of the Schedule A and B is annexed
herewith collectively as Annexure-A.

ii)

That the suit premises were originally belonged to one

Lakshminarayan
Chakraborty,
Chakraborty

Chakraborty

since
alias

deceased.

alias
Said

Lakshmikanta

deceased, son of Late Krishna

Lakshmikanta
Lakshminarayan

Chakraborty,

since

Chandra Chakraborty,

resident of Village- Sekrahati, also known as Sankarhati,

Post

Office-Munshirhat,

Police

Station-Jagatballavpur,

District-Howrah, was the sole and absolute owner and

occupier

of

the

suit

premises.

Said

Lakshmikanta

Chakraborty, the predecessor-in-interest of Defendants No.

2, 3 4 herein and Tuslibala Chakraborty and Sankari
Banerjee nee Chakraborty, became the absolute owner and
occupier of the entire 1.0000 or sixteen Annah share of the
Plot of Land No. 1234, classified as Shali land at that time,
measuring about 0.02 acre or 02 Satak, at Village and Mouja
Bamunpara, J. L. No. 016, within Balia Pargana, under
Sankarhati No. II Gram Panchayat area, Post OfficeMunshirhat, Police Station-Jagatballavpur, District-Howrah,
by purchasing the same from the then owners and
occupiers, by virtue of a Bengali Kobala dated April 27,

1976, registered before the Sub- Registrar at Bargachia and

recorded in the Book No.- I, Volume No. 23, Pages from 166
to 168, being Deed No. 1514 for the year 1976. The said
Lakshminarayan

Chakraborty

alias

Lakshmikanta

Chakraborty, while seized and possessed the aforesaid

property, duly muted his name as a raiyat in the L. R.
Record-of-Rights being L. R. Khatian No. 766/2, J. L. No.
016, in respect of the L. R. Plot of Land No. - 1234 and also
converted the land from Shali to Bastu. Thereafter said
Lakshminarayan
Chakraborty,

Chakraborty

erected

three

alias
storied

Lakshmikanta
building

there

containing a total of 19 (nineteen) shop-rooms of different

sizes therein. Among those said 19 (nineteen) shop-rooms in
the said properties described in the Schedules below, 9
(nine) shop-rooms are in the ground floor, 8 (eight) shoprooms are in the first floor and 2 (two) shop-rooms are in the
second floor. Be it specifically mentioned that all those 9
shop-rooms in the ground floor and 8 shop-rooms in the first
floor, i. e., total 17 (seventeen) shop-rooms are part of said
A Scheduled and those 2 (two) shop-rooms etc. in the

second floor are the part of said B Scheduled property. Be

it further mentioned that all the 17 shop-rooms situated in
the said A Scheduled property are in use by several GharBharatia tenants.
iii)

Thereafter by virtue of a registered Deed of settlement being

Deed No. 1134 dated June 5, 1982 registered at Bargachia
sub-registry

office

at

Howrah,

executed

between

said

Lakshmikanta Chakraborty, since deceased and one Mr.

Jagadish Chandra Mishra, the later i.e. said Jagadish
Chandra Mishra became sole and absolute owner in respect
of the one room measuring more or less 100 square feet in
the North-Eastern side of the second floor of the said
properties. In the said Deed of Settlement said Jagadish
Chandra Mishra also got the easement right over the
verandah adjacent to the said room in the second floor and
also over the staircase.
In this regard a copy of the aforesaid Deed of Settlement
dated June 5, 1982 is annexed herewith as Annexure-B.
iv)

Thereafter by virtue of a registered Sale Deed being Deed No.

0199 dated 29.01.2002 registered at Bargachia sub-registry

office at Howrah, executed between the Plaintiffs herein and

said Jagadish Chandra Mishra, the Plaintiffs have purchased
the said room in the north-eastern side of the second floor of
the said properties and accordingly the Plaintiffs have
became jointly sole and absolute owners of the said room in
the second floor of the suit premises from January 29, 2002.
In this regard a copy of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated
29.01.2002 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C.
v)

In the mean time on or about 1998 said Lakshmikanta

Chakraborty

alias

Lakshminarayan

Chakraborty

died

intestate leaving behind his legal heirs being (i) Smt.

Tulsibala

Chakraborty,

widow

of

Late

Lakshmikanta

Chakraborty; (ii) Smt. Sandhya Pandit, i.e. the Defendant No.

3 herein, (iii) Smt. Sankari Banerjee, since deceased, (iv)
Smt. Menaka Adhikari, i.e. the Defendant no. 4 herein, no.
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are daughters of Late Lakshmikanta
Chakraborty and (v) Sri Kashinath Chakraborty, son of Late
Lakshmikanta Chakraborty, i.e. the Defendant no. 2 herein,
and all of the legal heirs accordingly became undivided 1/5 th
shareholder and owner of equal 1/5 th share in the said

10

properties except abovementioned room in the north-eastern

side of the second floor of the suit premises of which said
Lakshmikanta Chakraborty, since deceased had by virtue of
a Deed of Settlement dated June 8, 1982 said Jagadish
Chandra Mishra became the absolute owner and presently
by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated January 24, 2002 the
Defendants are the owners of the said room in the second
floor.
vi)

Thereafter by virtue of another registered Deed of Sale being

Deed No. 0405 dated 26.08.2004 registered at Bargachia
sub-registry

office

at

Howrah,

executed

between

the

Plaintiffs and all the legal heirs of Late Lakshmikanta

Chakraborty, the Plaintiffs have became joint and absolute
owners in respect of another room measuring more or less
40 square feet in the north-eastern side of the second floor of
the suit premises, and also became owners of the adjacent
verandah and open roof measuring more or less 150 square
feet in the second floor including right to construct in the
said open roof. Be it mentioned here that in the said Deed of
conveyance dated 26.08.2004 Smt. Sankari Banerjee, since

11

deceased has also put her respective signature as one of the

legal heir of said Sri Lakshmikanta Chakraborty, since
deceased.
In this regard a copy of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated
26.08.2004 is annexed herewith as Annexure-D.
vii)

Thus by virtue of abovementioned Deed of Sale dated

January 24, 2002 and Deed of Sale dated August 26, 2004
the Plaintiffs became joint and absolute owners in respect of
the second floor in the said properties which is a three
storied building. The Plaintiffs are in possession of the
second floor of the suit premises since after their buying the
same and the Plaintiffs since then, are regularly paying
property tax in respect of the said two rooms in the second
floor i.e. the B; Scheduled property herein. Be it mentioned
here that there are only two rooms in the second floor of the
suit premises.
In this regard the latest tax receipts of those two shop rooms
are annexed herewith as Annexure-E.

12

viii)

In the mean time Smt. Tulsibala Chakraborty, widow of Late

Lakshmikanta Chakraborty died intestate and according to
Hindu Law the remaining legal heirs, namely Smt. Sandhya
Pandit, Smt. Sankari Banerjee, Smt. Menaka Choudhury,
i.e. all daughters of Late Tulsibala Chkaraborty and Sri
Kashinath Chakraborty, son of Late Tulsibala Chkaraborty,
became joint owners and also each of them became
undivided 1/4th share-holder in respect of remaining ground
and first floor of the said premises.

ix)

Thereafter all on a sudden form the month of June 2011, the

Defendant No. 1 started claiming him to be the sole and
absolute owner of the ground floor and first floor of the said
premises i.e. the A Scheduled property herein and started
collecting rent from the tenants in the ground and first floor
of the suit premises. Be it mentioned here that the Plaintiffs
were also been inducted as tenant in respect of one shop
room in the first floor of the suit premises.

x)

Thereafter, upon enquiry, the Plaintiffs came to know that

said Sri Kashinath Chakraborty, who is the son and one of
the legal heir of Late Lakshmikanta and Late Tulsibala

13

Chakraborty, and also one of the co-owners and/or owner of

undivided 1/4th share of the ground and first floor of the said
premises, and also the Defendant No. 2 herein, had sold out
the entire said A Scheduled Property to the Defendant No. 1
abovenamed. The Plaintiffs have further came to know that
two daughters and legal heirs of Late Lakshmikanta
Chakrbaorty namely Smt. Sandhya Pandit and Smt. Menaka
Banerjee i.e. the Defendant No. 3 and 4 herein, had executed
Deed of Gift in favour of Sri Kashinath Chakraborty and
gifted their respective undivided 1/4th shares of each in the
ground floor and first floor of the said premises to Sri
Kashinath Chakraborty and by virtue of those Deed of Gifts
Sri Kashinath Chakraborty had became undivided 3/4 th
shareholder and owner of the 3/4th share in the said A
Scheduled property. Be it mentioned here another legal heir
of Late Lakshmikanta Chakraborty namely Smt. Sankari
Banerjee, since deceased, did not gift her share to Sri
Kashinath Chakraborty and retained her undivided 1/4 th
share in the said A Scheduled property, with herself till her
demise on or about 2006 and thereafter her legal heirs

14

became the joint owners and undivided equal share-holders

in respect of her 1/4th undivided share in the said A
Scheduled property. Hence, said Sri Kashinath Chakraborty
became owner of undivided 3/4th share in the said A
Scheduled property and can not sell out entire portion of the
said A Scheduled property to anyone as claimed by the
Defendant No. 1.
xi)

Be it mentioned here that said Smt. Sankari Banerjee, one of

the daughter and legal heir of said Late Lakshmikanta and
Late Tulsibala Chakraborty, died intestate on or about 2006
leaving behind her legal heirs namely (i) Sri Samir Banerjee,
husband of Late Sankari Banerjee; (ii) Sri Raju Banerjee, (iii)
Sri Sambhu Banerjee, both (ii) and (iii) are sons of Late
Sankari Banerjee and (iv) Smt. Shilpa Chakraborty, daughter
of Late Sankari Banerjee. According to the Hindu Law, all the
said legal heirs of Late Sankari Banerjee became joint and
absolute owners in respect of 1/16th share each and/or each
of them became undivided 1/16th shareholder and owners in
respect of the said A Scheduled property.

15

xii)

Thereafter again by virtue of another registered Deed of Sale

being Deed No. 2904 dated 10.08.2012 registered at
Bargachia sub-registry office at Howrah executed between
the Plaintiffs/Petitioners and Sri Samir Banerjee, Sri Raju
Banerjee and Sri Sambhu Banerjee, i.e. the legal heirs of
Late Sankari Banerjee, the Plaintiffs became joint and
undivided owners in respect of undivided 3/16th share in the
said A Scheduled property.
In this regard a copy of the aforesaid Deed of Sale dated
10.08.2012 is annexed herewith as Annexure-F.

xiii)

Similarly thereafter by virtue of another registered Deed of

Sale being Deed no. 3070 dated 27.08.2012 registered at
Bargachia Additional District sub-registry office at Howrah
executed

between

the

Plaintiffs

and

Smt.

Shilpa

Chakraborty, i.e. the remaining legal heir of Late Sankari

Banerjee, the Plaintiffs became joint and undivided owners
in respect of rest 1/16th share in the A Scheduled property
described below.

16

In this regard a copy of the aforesaid Deed of Sale dated

27.08.2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G.
xiv)

By virtue of those Deeds of Sale, the Plaintiffs herein became

co-sharer and/or undivided shareholder of 1/4 th share in the
said A Scheduled property. Be it further mentioned here as
earlier stated that the Plaintiffs have already became the
joint and absolute owner of the said B Scheduled property.

xv)

That upon further enquiry, the Plaintiffs have came to know

that by virtue of a registered Deed of Gift Dated 21.02.2008
registered at Bargachia sub-registry office, Defendant No. 3
and 4 have gifted their respective 1/4th shares in the said A
Scheduled property to the Defendant No. 1. By virtue of the
said registered Deed of Gift dated 21.02.2008 the Defendant
No. 2 has became owner of the 3/4 th undivided share in the
said A Scheduled property.

xvi)

Thereafter on June 13, 2011, the Defendant No. 2, by virtue

of a Deed of Sale being Deed No. 01591 registered at
Bargachia sub-registry office, sold out entire portion of the
said A Scheduled property to the Defendant No. 1. Moreover,

17

the Defendant No. 2 in collusion with Defendant No. 1

illegally and with ulterior motive executed the Deed of Sale
where the Defendant No. 2 has mentioned himself as the
sole and absolute owner of the said A Scheduled property
and also only mentioned Defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 as the
legal

heir

of

said

Lakshmikanta

Chakraborty,

since

deceased. Intentionally Defendant No. 2 has omitted the

name of Smt. Sankari Banerjee, since deceased, who is also
another legal heir of Mr. Lakshmikanta Chakrbaorty, since
deceased.

Defendant

No.

in

collusion

with

other

Defendants including Defendant No. 1 misrepresented in the

said Deed of sale dated 13.06.2011 executed between
Defendant No. 2 and 1. Moreover, the Defendant No. 2 also
mentioned the Scheduled property as the two storied
whereas originally the said premises is a three storied
building. The third floor of the said premises is mentioned as
B Scheduled property of which the Plaintiffs are the owners.
In this regard a copy of the aforesaid purported Deed of Sale
dated June 13, 2011 is annexed herewith as Annexure-H.

18

xvii)

That the Defendant No. 2 has no right to sale out the entire
portion of the said A Scheduled property to the Defendant
No. 1 as he is only the owner of the 3/4 th undivided share in
the said A Scheduled property and also the Defendant No. 1
has no right to claim absolute ownership over the property of
which other co-owners are still subsisting. Hence, the Deed
of conveyance dated June 13, 2011 executed between
Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 is a sham transaction
and should be declared as null and void as it has been

executed by practicing fraud and should not be given effect.

xviii) That the Defendant No. 1, knowing fully well that his title
over the suit property is disputed and illegal, thereafter upon
misleading the Block Land and Land Revenue Officer,
Jagatballavpur Block, Howrah, managed to mutate his name
as the sole and absolute owner in respect of the said A

xix)

Scheduled property.
That upon knowing these facts on 14.09.2012 the Plaintiffs
had made a representation and applied before the Block
Land and Land Revenue Officer, Jagatballavpur Block,
Howrah for correction and mutation for recording their name
as the sole and absolute owner in respect of second floor of

19

the suit premises i.e. the said B Scheduled property as well

as applied for recording their name as the co-owner in
respect of said A Scheduled property.
In this regard a copy of the aforesaid representation is

xx)

annexed herewith as Annexure-I.

That the Block Land and

Land

Revenue

Officer,

Jagatballavpur Block, Howrah upon serving notice to the

Defendant No. 1, fixed several dates for hearing on this
issue. But the Defendant No. 1 dared to appear before
Learned

Block

Jagatballavpur

Land
Block,

and

Land

Howrah

on

Revenue
any

Officer,

occasion

and

thereafter upon going through all the documents and

records and upon being satisfied thereon, on April 16, 2013
the

Learned

Block

Land

and

Land

Revenue

Officer,

Jagatballavpur Block, Howrah has been pleased to pass an

order to correct and modify the record and include the name
of the Plaintiffs as the co-owners of the said premises and
opened two new Khatians in favour of the Plaintiffs being
Khatian No. 1769 and Khatian No. 1770. Thereafter, the
Plaintiffs name had been accordingly included as the coowner in respect of the said premises.

20

In this regard a copy of the aforesaid order dated April 6,

2013 alongwith the copy of the amended record and latest

xxi)

tax receipt is annexed herewith collectively as Annexure-J.

That as the Plaintiffs are undisputedly absolute and joint
owners in respect of the two rooms and adjoining floor area
in the third floor of the said property i.e. the said B
Scheduled property, hence the Plaintiffs are entitled for a
declaration that they are sole and absolute joint owners in

respect of the said B Scheduled property.

xxii) That since the year 2004 the Plaintiffs are in possession of
both the rooms in the third floor and enjoying the same as
owners of the said property without any disturbance. Also
since the year 2004 the Plaintiffs are regularly paying tax in
respect of those two rooms in the second floor of the said
property as described in Schedule B as aforesaid.
xxiii) That since after allegedly becoming the owner of the said A
Schedule property, the Defendant no. 1 is constantly
harassing the Plaintiffs in their full enjoyment over the said
B Schedule property described below of which they are the
joint and absolute owners as well as in enjoyment their
undivided 1/4th ownership over the said A Scheduled
property.

21

xxiv) That the Plaintiffs are also a monthly tenant in respect of

one shop-room situated in the first floor of the said A
Scheduled property described below at a monthly rent of Rs.
150/- payable according to the Bengali calendar month. The
Plaintiffs were regularly uninterruptedly paying rent to the
Defendant No. 2 the allegedly erstwhile co-sharer of the said
A Scheduled property. Defendant no. 2 was collecting rent
from the Plaintiffs and also from the other tenants on behalf
of himself and also on behalf of the other legal heirs of Sri
Lakshmikanta

Chakraborty,

since

deceased

and

Smt.

Tulsibala Chakraborty, since deceased. But soon after the

abovementioned purported sham transaction of property
between the Defendant No. 1 and 2, illegally the Defendant
No. 1 started claiming himself to be the sole and absolute
owner of the said A Scheduled property and got his name
wrongly mutated as well and stopped collecting rent from the
Plaintiffs

and

from

some

other

tenants

and

started

threatening the Plaintiffs that if the Plaintiffs do not quit and

deliver the vacant khas possession of the tenanted shop-

22

room to the Defendant no. 1 then they have to face dire

xxv)

consequences.
That thereafter accordingly the Defendant No. 1, to harass
the Plaintiffs, filed suit for eviction and recovery of khas
possession against the Plaintiffs under the Transfer of
Property Act which has been registered as Title Suit No. 92 of
2012 pending before the Court of Learned 7th Civil Judge
(Senior Division) at Howrah. The Plaintiffs have duly filed
their Written Statement and contesting the suit. But the
Defendant No. 1 herein who is the Plaintiff in the said Title
Suit No. 92 of 2012 is not taking steps and accordingly
Learned Trial Judge has fixed the matter on the next date for

last chance to show cause by the Plaintiffs.

xxvi) That inspite of filing suit for eviction against the Plaintiffs,
the Defendant No. 1 and his men and agents, most of whom
are local hooligans, with the support of the other Defendants
are constantly threatening the Plaintiffs that they will
forcefully evict the Plaintiffs from the tenanted shop-room
situated in the said A Scheduled property as well as also
from the said B Scheduled property of which even the
Defendant No. 1 is not even the owner. Defendant No. 1 and

23

his men and agents also denying the ownership of the

Plaintiffs in the said premises.
xxvii) That on or about 08.01.2013 the Defendant No. 1 and his
men and agents, most of whom are local hooligans have
direly threatened the Plaintiffs that they will not allow the
Plaintiffs to enter into the said premises and deny the legal
right of ownership of the Plaintiffs over the said Scheduled
properties. They have directed the Plaintiffs to vacate the
tenanted shop-room in A Scheduled property as well as
directed to vacate the shop-rooms owned by the Plaintiffs in
B

Scheduled

properties

immediately

or

face

the

consequence.
xxviii) That having no other option the Plaintiffs have approached
the Jagatballavpur Police Station and lodged a written
complaint against the Defendant no. 1 in respect of his illegal
activities in 08.01.2013. Be it mentioned here that on
previous occasion on 19.08.2012 similarly the Defendant No.
1 created nuisance and threatened the Plaintiffs and as a
result the Plaintiffs had lodged a general diary at the
Jagatballavpur Police Station against Defendant No. 1. The
Plaintiffs also had filed an application under Section 144 (2)

24

of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned

Executive Magistrate at Howrah being M. P. Case No. 65 of
2013 to restrain these illegal activities of the Defendant No. 1
and his men and agents. But the reckless Defendant No. 1
with the help of other Defendants and their men and agents
became more ferocious and adamant and started threatening
to harm the property and body of the Plaintiffs. Moreover,
the Defendants and their men and agents almost in regular
occasions use to create nuisance infront of the shop-room of
the Plaintiffs to create mental pressure upon them. Even the
Defendant No. 1 with help of the other Defendants and his
men and agents on several occasions tried to obstruct the
Plaintiffs to enter the shop-room and the B Scheduled
portion of the said premises. But the Plaintiffs, being peace
loving citizens, somehow managed to avoid confrontation
with them. But the adamant attitude of the Defendants was
increasing day by day. On 19.08.2013 the reckless and
adamant Defendant No. 1 and his men and agents again
came to the shop room of the Plaintiffs and threatened them
that their name had been illegally included in the Record

25

Book before the Block Land Reforms Office and if the

Plaintiffs do not delete their name as the co-owner of the A
Scheduled property as recorded in the Record Book before
the Block Land Reforms Office, then the Plaintiffs have to
face the consequences which will not be good for their health
and business as well. Immediately thereafter having no other
alternative, the Plaintiffs again lodged a complaint before the
Jagatballavpur Police Station in that regard on 19.08.2013
being General Diary Entry No. 0938, dated 19.08.2012, at
the Jagatballavpur Police Station. These show the reckless
conduct of the Defendants specially Defendant No. 1.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs on 31.08.2013 have also send a
notice and intimated the present situation and high handed
activities of the Defendant No. 1 to the Pradhan of the
Shankarhati No. 2 Gram Panchayat.
In this regard a copy of the aforesaid complaint dated
08.01.2013 alongwith General Diary dated 19.08.2013 and
the aforesaid notice dated 31.08.2013 is annexed herewith
collectively as Annexure-K.
xxix) That as the Plaintiffs have raised objection and challenged
the illegal Deed of Conveyance executed by the Defendant

26

No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 and also made public the

ill-intentions of the Defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 to not to give
the respective share to the legal heirs of their other deceased
sister namely Sankari Banerjee, hence the Defendant No. 2,
3 and 4 is now supporting Defendant No. 1 to create those

xxx)

disturbances, nuisance, harassment to the Plaintiffs.

That the Plaintiffs earn their livelihood from those shop
rooms situated in the said A and B Scheduled property,
and

such

continuous

threat,

disturbance,

nuisance,

harassment inflicted at the instigation of the Defendants, the

life, liberty and livelihood of the Plaintiffs is at stake.
xxxi) Not only that, inspite of obtaining a legal order from the
Learned

Block

Land

and

Land

Revenue

Officer,

Jagatballavpur Block at Howrah, all the Defendants are also

denying the Plaintiffs as the lawful co-owner in respect of the
properties mentioned in the said A and B Schedule of the
property. As a result the Defendant No. 1 himself had
threatened to change the nature and character of the suit
property without the consent of the Plaintiffs as the
Defendant No. 1 had initially illegally recorded his name as
the owner in respect of said A Scheduled property. Inspite of

27

being well aware of the fact that such recording is a illegal

recording and also being aware about rectification of such
recording and inclusion of the names of the Plaintiffs as the
co-owners,

the Defendant

No. 1 alongwith the other

Defendants, are threatening the Plaintiffs that they would

sale, transfer and/or alienate the said properties mentioned
in the Schedule below without the consent of the Plaintiffs
and dispossess the Plaintiffs.
xxxii) Hence, it is necessary that an order of permanent injunction
against all the Defendants is passed in favour of the
Plaintiffs restraining the Defendants and their men and
agents, specifically the Defendant No. 1 and his men and
agents, most of whom are local hooligans, not to dispossess
and/or try to dispossess the Plaintiffs without the due
process of law and also not to create any disturbance,
nuisance, harassment and/or objection in enjoyment of the
Plaintiffs in the possession in the said properties mentioned
in the said A and B Schedule. The Defendants shall also be
restrained to create any objection to the Plaintiffs from
entering in to the said property any time they need to.
Moreover, all the Defendants may be restrained to change the

28

nature and character of the suit premises mentioned in the

said A and B Schedule as well as the Defendant No. 1 shall
be restrained to sale, transfer and/or alienate the said A
and B Scheduled property without due consent of the
Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs are the owners in the B Scheduled
property and co-sharers and co-owners in the said A
Scheduled property.
xxxiii) That the Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction in
the nature mentioned in the foregoing paragraph till the
disposal of the suit.
xxxiv) That inspite of knowing fully well that the Plaintiffs are
lawful 1/4th share-holder in respect of the said A Scheduled
property, the Defendant No. 1 is collecting rent alone from
the other tenants in the A Scheduled property.
xxxv) The Plaintiffs have also made notice to the other tenants in
the said A Scheduled property for payment of proportionate
share of the rent to the Plaintiffs but neither the Defendant
No. 1 nor the tenants are paying the portion of the rent to
the Plaintiffs and on the other hand the Defendant No. 1 is
collecting rent regularly from the other tenants in the said A

29

Scheduled property without giving share of such to the

Plaintiffs.
xxxvi) That it is necessary that an order of permanent injunction
should also be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs restraining
the Defendant No. 1 and his men and agents to collect total
amount of rents regularly from the other tenants of the
shop-rooms situated in the said A Scheduled property.
xxxvii)
Hence, it is necessary that a receiver may be appointed
who will collect rent on regular basis from all the tenants in
the said premises described in the said A Schedule and
upon collecting rent, he will distribute it to all the lawful
owners of the A Scheduled property till the disposal of the
suit.
xxxviii)
Moreover, since the said property is undivided, hence,
on several occasions the Plaintiffs also has approached the
Defendants for partition of the said premises and also asked
for partition of the Scheduled property in terms of the Order
dated April 16, 2013 passed by the Learned Block Land and
Land Reforms Officer, Jagatballavpur Block at Howrah both
by metes and bounds by way of amicable settlement but the
Defendants were not inclined to do so. The Defendant No. 2,
3 and 4 informed the Plaintiffs that as they had sold out

30

their entire share and as the Defendant No. 1 is the sole

owner of the A Scheduled property hence they can not
interfere in any dispute arising in respect of the Scheduled
suit properties. The Defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 also did not
accept the Plaintiffs as the owners of the A Scheduled
property. On the other hand, the Defendant No. 1 has also
refused the proposal of partition made by the Plaintiffs on
the ground that he is the sole and absolute owner of the said
premises and he is free to do anything with these Scheduled
properties even with the B Scheduled property and also he
does not accept the Plaintiffs claim as the lawful owners in
respect of A as well as B Scheduled property and also
negates the order of the Learned Block Land and Land
Reforms Officer, Jagatballavpur Block at Howrah.
xxxix) The Defendants, specifically the Defendant no. 1 is illegally
attempting to deprive the Plaintiffs from their claim of
legitimate share over the Scheduled property described below
and in the above factual scenario unless the decree of
partition as prayed for herein after is granted the Plaintiffs
would suffer irreparably.

31

xl)

That the cause of action for partition arose on December

2012 when the Defendants refused to partition of the
properties mentioned and described in the Schedule A and
B of the plaint amicably amidst the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants and also lastly on July 2013 the when Defendant
No. 1 without the consent of the Plaintiffs threatened to
dispossess the Plaintiffs forcefully, change the nature and
character of the entire suit properties mentioned in the said
A and B Schedule property and also to transfer, sale

xli)

and/or alienate the said premises to the third party.

That the cause of action for the Permanent injunction arose
on several occasions and till date it is continuing when with
the support of the other Defendants, the Defendant No. 1
and his men and agents, most of whom are local hooligans,
direly threatened the Plaintiffs to dispossess them forcefully

xlii)

from their possession over the suit premises.

That the balance of convenience and inconvenience is lying
in favour of the Plaintiffs and hence, the Plaintiffs are
entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for or else the Plaintiffs
will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

32

3. The Plaintiffs most respectfully state that the Defendants specifically

Defendant No. 1 is still claiming himself to be the owner of the entire suit
premises and denying the legitimate right title interest of the Plaintiffs
over the suit premises as mentioned as said A and B Scheduled
property.
4. The Plaintiffs most respectfully state that the Defendant No. 1 is
regularly collecting the rents from all the tenants under the said A
Scheduled property and is denying the Plaintiffs their proportionate
share over the rent.
5. The Plaintiffs most respectfully state that on several occasions the
Defendants and their men and agents, most of them of which are local
hooligans, have threatened Plaintiffs to vacate all the shop rooms
possessed by them in the entire portion of the said premises. The
reckless Defendants also tried on several occasion to restrain Your
Petitioners to enter into the said premises. Constantly the Defendants
specifically Defendant No. 1 is threatening the Plaintiffs to create third
party interest over the said A Schedule property by way of sale transfer
or alienation and will change the nature and character of the entire suit
premises including said A as well as B Scheduled property.

33

6. The Plaintiffs most respectfully states that if notice of this application is

served on the Defendants, the Defendants shall attempt to render the
present proceeding largely infructuous by taking steps to create third
party interest in the suit premises or by negating lawful right title
interest of the Plaintiffs or by taking steps to sale and/or alienate and/or
transfer the suit premises in order to prejudice to the Petitioners.

7. That the Plaintiffs have good prima facie case to go for trial.

8. That the balance of convenience and inconvenience is in favour of the

Plaintiffs.

9. That unless order of temporary injunction is passed restricting the

Defendants from disturbing and/or interfering with the possession user
and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs in the suit properties described in the
Schedule A and B, the Plaintiffs will be seriously prejudiced and will
suffer irreparable loss and injury which can not be compensated by
money.

34

10.

Unless and until Orders as prayed for are passed, Plaintiffs will

suffer irreparable loss and prejudice.

11.

This application is bonafide and made in the interest of justice.

In the premises, Plaintiffs humbly pray your

Honor be pleased to issue rules calling upon the
Defendant No. 1 to 4 to show cause as to why an
order of temporary injunction till the disposal of
the suit shall not
Defendant

No.

to

be passed
4

against

restraining

all

the
the

Defendants and their men and agents from

obstructing the Plaintiffs to enter into the suit
premises mentioned and described in the said A
and B Schedule property as well as restraining
all the Defendants and their men and agents
from disturbing, harassing, creating nuisance
and any kind of disturbance to the Plaintiffs in
enjoying their lawful and peaceful possession in
the suit premises mentioned and described in

35

the said A and B Schedule property and also

restraining all the Defendants and their men
and agents from effecting any additions and/or
alterations and/or new construction in the suit
premises mentioned and described in the said A
and B Schedule property and/or creating any
Third Party interest and from transferring,
assigning and/or parting with possession of the
suit premises described in the said A and B
Schedule property to stranger/outsider without
the consent of the Plaintiffs illegally and in a
high handed manner and also restraining the
Defendant No. 1 and his men and agents to
collect rent from the other tenants and if any
cause is shown by the Defendants herein then to
make the said Rules absolute on hearing the
parties and meanwhile considering the urgency
involved in the facts and circumstances stated
above in this matter and also considering that
delay would defer the purpose of the filing of this

36

application Learned Court be pleased to pass an

order of ad-interim injunction on the aforesaid
terms and to pass such further and/or other
Order and/or orders and/or direction and/or
directions and/or relief and/or reliefs be passed
and/or granted as to this Learned Court may
deem fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness the Plaintiffs as in duty bound shall ever pray.

37

Verification
I, Sri Arindam Mallik, son of Sri Harihar Mallik, aged about

years by faith

Hindu by occupation business residing at Village and Mouja-Bamunpara,

Police Station-Jagatballavpur, District-Howrah, do hereby verify and state that
all the foregoing paragraphs in the plaint are true to my knowledge and belief. I
do sign this verification on

day of December 2013 at the office of the

Advocate.
Date:
Deponent
Identified by me

Advocate

38

Affidavit
I, Sri Arindam Mallik, son of Sri Harihar Mallik, aged about

years by faith

Hindu by occupation business residing at Village and Mouja-Bamunpara,

Police Station-Jagatballavpur, District-Howrah, do hereby solemnly affirm and
say as follows:
1. That I am the Plaintiff No. 2 abovenamed and constituted attorney of the
Plaintiff No. 1 and as such I am fully conversant with the facts &
circumstance of this case out of which this instant Suit has arisen and
as such I am competent to affirm this affidavit on my behalf and on
behalf of the Plaintiff No. 1.

39

2.

That the statements made in paragraphs no. 1 to

are true to my

knowledge and the rests are my humble submission by this Learned Court.

Prepared in my office

The deponent is known to me

Advocate
Solemnly affirmed on day of December 2013
at the office of the Learned Advocate

Schedule-A
All that piece and parcel of ground and first floor of the three storied premises
situated in the land and property measuring about 2 Decimal Bastu land
within the J. L. No. 16, R. S. Khatiyan No. 594, L. R. Khatiyan No. 766/2, Dag
No.-1234 under Shankarhati 2 No. Panchayat area, Village and MoujaBamunpara, Post Office- Munsirhat, Police Station-Jagatballabhpur, DistrictHowrah since butted and bounded as follows:
On the North: Plot No. 1235 and a portion of the Plot No. 1633

40

On the South: - Howrah-Amta Road.

On the East: - Amta-Jagatballavpur alias Munshirhat-Ichanagari
Gram Sarak and a road-side shop named Mullick Stores.
On the West: - Plot No. 1633.
Schedule-B
All that piece and parcel of second floor of three storied premises situated in
the land and property measuring about 2 Decimal Bastu land within the J. L.
No. 16, R. S. Khatiyan No. 594, L. R. Khatiyan No. 766/2, Dag No.-1234 under
Shankarhati 2 No. Panchayat area, Village and Mouja- Bamunpara, Post OfficeMunsirhat, Police Station-Jagatballabhpur, District-Howrah since butted and
bounded as follows:
On the North: Plot No. 1235 and a portion of the Plot No. 1633
On the South: - Howrah-Amta Road.
On the East: - Amta-Jagatballavpur alias Munshirhat-Ichanagari
Gram Sarak and a road-side shop named Mullick Stores.
On the West: - Plot No. 1633.

41