NAMITA ROY Vs. DEBASISH KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Anil Chandra Karmakar purchased the scheduled mentioned suit property and after purchasing the same he was residing with his family members by making necessary construction therein. Thereafter said Anil died intestate on 4/9/2009 leaving behind him his widow and a son namely Debasish Karmakar, who is opposite party herein and two daughters including petitioner herein. Other daughter of Anil namely Ruchita Guha died, leaving behind her two daughters.

(2.) Petitioner's contention is during the life time of said Anil, he gifted entire ground floor of the suit property in favour of petitioner herein by a deed of gift dtd. 22/8/2007 and delivered the vacant possession of the entire ground floor of the suit property in favour of the petitioner who accepted the same. There was no disturbance in possessing and in occupying the said entire ground floor of the said property by the petitioner during life time of Anil, but after his demise, his aforesaid son Debashis allegedly started creating disturbance in peaceful possession and occupation of the said ground floor of the suit building by the petitioner/Defendant No.1.

(3.) Aforesaid son of Anil namely Debasis Karmakar being the plaintiff, instituted present suit being T.S. No. 653 of 2012 against present petitioner and also other co-owners of the suit property, inter alia, praying for declaration that the said deed of gift in favour of petitioner herein is illegal, manufactured and liable to be cancelled with further prayer for injunction. Initially the Trial court refused to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction. Petitioner herein thereafter appeared and filed written objection against the said injunction application. After contested hearing, Trial court was pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction to the effect that defendant No. 1 shall not create any third- party interest in respect of the suit property and further pleased to direct both plaintiff as well as defendant no. 1 /petitioner herein to allow each other to have reasonable access through the common stair-cases and the other common areas of the suit property and petitioner herein /defendant No. 1 was further directed to provide the duplicate key of the lock used in the main entrance gate by him to the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff can use the same.