KISHEN KUNWAR Vs. AJAY TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision has been directed against the order dated 27th November, 2003 passed by Shri Brindaban Mondal, learned District Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2002 confirming an order passed by the learned Trial Judge under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 27-8-2002 in connection with Title Suit No. 33 of 2002. The learned Trial Judge was pleased to dispose of the said injunction petition directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of nature, character and possession of the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) The facts in the plaint case in brief is that the suit property was owned by one Bishnath Tewari who made a gift of the said property by a registered deed in favour of his wife, the original defendant No. 3 on 1-8-1988. Bishnath Tewari died on 4-1-1986. The defendant No. 3 was the sister of V. N. Tewari who was the father of the original plaintiff Ajay Tewari. It is submitted before me by the learned advocate for the revisionists that after the execution of the said deed of gift there was mutation of the land covered by that deed and even payment of tax to the appropriate authority and thus, by way of inheritance from the donee, the present defendants became the absolute owners of the suit property. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for partition. The ground taken by the respondents in this revision is the ignorance about the existence of deed of gift. Subsequently, an amendment petition was filed before the learned trial Court for incorporating a prayer for declaration that the deed of gift was void and invalid, The said amendment petition is still pending,

(3.) Mr. Haradhan Banerjee appearing for the revisionists submits before me that by the status quo order the revisionists have been seriously prejudiced as they are the owners, they have been prevented from making constructions on the suit property for the order impugned. It is also pointed out by Mr, Banerjee that both the learned Courts below erred in their conclusions as regards the prima facie case of the revisionists. It is further submitted by him that in view of the registered deed of gift there is strong prima facie case in favour of the revisionists which has been totally misconceived by both the learned courts below.