SUKUMAR MULLICK Vs. BARUN MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the Order No.56 dated May 3, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 3 rd Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.1529 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application for local inspection.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1529 of 2002 against the opposite party No.1 and other proforma opposite parties for declaration that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants are the joint and absolute owners in respect of Lot 'B' schedule property being the premises No. 7A Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Kolkata, permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating any obstruction and/or interference in respect of Lot 'B' property together with common areas and facilities as mentioned in the plaint of the said suit, mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore brick-built partition wall, removal of water supply pipe, etc. The plaintiffs have contended that the said suit was filed as a consequence of the final decree passed in the suit for partition and administration being No.88 of 1978 in the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta against the father of the defendant and against one Madan Mohan Mullick and Smt. Raj Laxmi Mullick.

(3.) According to the plaint, the said suit was decreed in final form on the basis of compromise and the report of the Partition Commissioner on May 10, 1985 and by the said final decree, the plaintiffs were allotted Lot 'B' property. The defendant was allotted Lot 'A' property. A partition wall had been constructed between Lot 'A' and Lot 'B'. A separate staircase in Lot 'B' property was also constructed as per final partition decree. Thereafter, on October 12, 2001, the defendant with his men and agents dismantled the said pucca brick wall and kept various goods/articles for business purpose in the courtyard of the 'B' schedule property by encroaching thereof without the consent and permission in writing of the plaintiffs. The defendant is also making obstructions by various means. He is also making construction of a latrine on the ground floor of the Lot 'B'. So, the suit for the relief was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs.