PAWAN KUMAR BHAWSINKA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR BHAWSINKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in C.M.A. No.224 of 2004 arising out of Civil Suit No.285 of 2004 directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

(2.) RESPONDENTS are the plaintiffs and appellant is defendant No.1 in the aforesaid civil suit. In the said suit the plaintiffs filed an application vide C.M.A. No.224 of 2004 praying for injunction as against defendant No.1. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land is the joint family property and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. During the life time of the father of the parties, there was a family arrangement allotting separate portions of the property to different co -sharers. The father himself had kept some property with him and it was decided that partition shall come in to effect after preparation of allotment map containing the signature of the parties. After the death of the father, the appellant -defendant No.1, even without preparation of the allotment map. created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the co -sharers and forcibly occupied the portion kept by the father. He also arbitrarily entered into an agreement with some outsiders and is going to construct a tower in the open terrace of the first floor, which is in common use of the parties. He has also constructed pillars over the passage in order to support the proposed tower to the detriment and prejudice of all other co -sharers. The further assertion of the plaintiffs is that the proposed construction of the tower would damage the old building.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), by order dated 18.08.2004 came to hold that the suit property is joint family property and parties are in separate possession of different portions by amicable arrangement and passed the order of status quo. Against the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.