SAILENDRA NATH PATRA Vs. GEETANJALI MANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order No.16 dated August 25, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Contai in Title Suit No.49 of 2010. By the impugned order learned Trial Court rejected the petition filed by the present petitioner defendant No.6 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for variation and / or setting aside ex-parte order of status quo passed by the learned Court vide order No.1 dated February 19, 2010 in Title Suit No.49 of 2010.

(2.) Respondent No.1 5 being plaintiffs filed said Title Suit No.49 of 2010 praying for declaring those plaintiffs' one-fourth undivided share in both 'ka'and 'kha' Schedule properties with a further prayer for partition by metes and bounds with other consequential reliefs.

(3.) It was the case of those plaintiffs that plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest Amulya Manna along with his three brothers namely, Kartick Manna, Hanu Manna and Paresh Manna purchased 47 decimals of land in plot No.455 and 15 decimals of land in plot No.455/1074 from their original owner Monnothonath Sarangi through a registered deed of Kobala dated February 28 of 1970. While those four brothers were in possession of said property in Ejmal, five decimals of land in plot No.455 vested to the State. Accordingly, they continued to possess in Ejmal 42 decimals in plot No.455 as described in Schedule 'ka' and 15 decimals of land in plot No.455/1074 as described in Schedule 'kha' of the plaint. Plaintiffs' predecessor-ininterest Amulya Manna had one-fourth undivided share in both 'ka' and 'kha' Schedule properties. He died leaving the present plaintiffs and one daughter Kalpana Pramanick as his only legal heirs. Said Kalpana Pramanick gifted her share of suit property in favour of plaintiff No.4 Kalipada Manna through a registered deed of gift dated September 29, 2004. Accordingly, present plaintiffs jointly had one-fourth undivided share in the suit properties. Though there was no partition by metes and bounds between the co-sharers, but other co-sharers and on their death their heirs and legal representatives started to transfer specific portion of suit property to different purchasers, and some of those transfers were in excess of their admitted share in the suit properties though there was no partition by metes and bounds among the cosharers. Some of those purchasers started to possess definite portions of the suit property and some of them made illegal construction thereupon. Defendant No.6's vendor Ruma Roy though claimed to purchase from legal heirs of Bhanu Manna but those legal heirs of Bhanu had no saleable interest in the property as they already sold out their entire share to other parties. Present defendant No.6 Sailendra Nath Patra did not acquire any title through said purchase but he and others were trying to construct houses on valuable portions of the unpartitioned land. As the defendants also refused the plaintiffs' claim for partition, the present plaintiffs were compelled to file said suit for partition. At the time of filing of said suit plaintiffs filed a petition for temporary injunction with a prayer for ad-interim injunction and learned Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo which was extended from time to time.