JAYASHRI GUHANEE GHOSE Vs. SHUKLA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25th April, 2008, disposing of three applications. Application being G. A. No. 396 of 2006, filed by respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 seeking vacation of the interim order of injunction dated 7th May, 2006 has been allowed. Consequently the principal application being G. A. No. 1425 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff seeking interim relief and the subsequent application being G. A. No. 3701 of 2006 which was to the same effect, but contained some additional grounds have been dismissed. As a result, respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 has been permitted to deal with the property known as 'rasbehari property' in its entirety and to deal with her undivided share in the Dharamtala and deogarh properties.

(2.) IN the suit, the plaintiff states that the parties to the suit are descended from and/or related to Ishan Chandra Ghosh. Ishan had two sons, Anukul and Pratul. Anukul had two sons, Hem Chandra and narayan. Hem Chandra had one son Asoke, who died on 9th September 1960. Defendant No. 1 is the childless widow of Asoke. The plaintiff is the daughter of Narayan. Defendant/respondent No. 2 is the grandson of Pratul. Ishan, the two sons, the three grandsons, and one great-grandson (Asoke), husband of defendant No. 1 /respondent No. I have all died intestate. Defendant/respondent No. 1 has inherited her share in the properties from her father-in-law. It is, therefore, the plaintiffs case that defendant no. 1/respondent No. 1 can only claim limited interest therein, each of which in law can only devolve upon the plaintiff as the plaintiff is the only heir of Asoke, i. e. husband of defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1. However, defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 is in the process of selling or encumbering the inherited properties. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking injunction and cancellation of any agreements to sell or encumber that may have been entered into by the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1. It is pleaded that the respondent No. 1 had no legal necessity to sell any of the properties as she was receiving sufficient monthly income for her livelihood. According to the amended plaint, Ishan owned an immovable property, now numbered as 32/1, 32a, 32b and 32c, Lenin Saani, Calcutta (the dharamtala property ). The plaintiff says that the parties are jointly interested in the dharamtala property and in two other immovable properties at 161 /2/1, Rashbehari avenue, Calcutta (The Rashbehari property)and Ishan Kutir at Puranbaha, Baidyanath, deogarh in the State of Jharkhand (the deogarh property ). Therefore to protect her interests an application being G. A. No. 1425 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff immediately on the institution of the suit seeking an ad interim order in terms of prayer "a" which was as follows :-" (a) An order of injunction be made forthwith restraining the respondent, her servants, agents and assigns from selling of or alienating or otherwise encumbering the properties mentioned in Annexure "a" or disposing of any portion thereof in any manner Whatsoever. " this prayer was allowed by order dated 12th may, 2006.

(3.) ON appearance of the first respondent, on17th May, 2006 the order was modified as follows :-