SAJLI KISHKU Vs. TALAMOYEE KISHKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that has arisen for consideration in the present appeal is whether an interim order can be passed in a suit in which the co-sharers have not been joined as parties which has the effect of rendering the suit not maintainable. Even if the issue has been settled by successive judicial pronouncements, it still deserves reiteration considering the submissions made from the bar.

(2.) A brief narration of the facts of the case is necessary. The appellant has filed a suit in the court below for partition and temporary injunction. The case made out in the plaint is that the property in question jointly belonged to four persons in equal shares. One Ragda Murmu, grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, used to cultivate the land and her name had been recorded as 'Adhi Dakhalkar'. In the year 1957, the original owners of the land settled the property in favour of Ragda Murmu and he became its absolute owner. He died leaving behind his only daughter Dulali Murmu who subsequently transferred the property to the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. The names of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 have also been recorded. The plaintiff claims that on September 25, 2017 the defendants nos. 2 to 6 in the suit who have no right, title and interest over the said property entered upon the suit land with weapons and tried to dispossess both the plaintiff as well as the defendant no. 1. Since in spite of request the defendant no. 1 did not take any step for partition by metes and bounds the suit was filed.

(3.) The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction restraining the defendant nos. 2 to 6 from disturbing his possession and further dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property.