Tanusree Basu & Ors Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors  INSC 384 (5 March 2008)
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar CIVIL APPEAL NO 1767 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13852 of 2007]
S.B. SINHA, J :
1. Leave granted.
2. The parties hereto are co-sharers. A suit was filed for partition.
Admittedly they had entered into a development agreement. The properties
which were in possession of the owners were described in Schedule A of the
plaint; whereas the properties which were subject matter of the development
agreement were described in Scheduled B thereof in the plaint filed by the
appellant in the Court of 8th Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alipore registered
Title Suit No. 9 of 2004.
In terms of the development agreement, three flats and parking spaces for
three cars had been allotted to the parties. An application for grant of
injunction in respect of Schedule A property restraining the respondents from
handing over the owners the allotted flats and from selling out any flats in
the premises in question, was filed in the suit on or about 14.03.2004 wherein
it was inter alia averred: "That at present the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 to 6 are
occupying 3 flats and 3 garages at premises no. 46A, Purna Chandra Mitra Lake,
Kolkata 700033, which are also undivided property." It was furthermore averred:
"That at present the plaintiffs have 93/240, undivided share, the legal
heirs of late Pinaki Prosad Basu (the defendant No. 2 to 6) have 54/240,
undivided share and the defendant no. 6 have 93/240, undivided share of the
schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. Although by amicable agreements the parties
are in possession of separate flats of schedule 'B' hereunder, there has not
been any demarcated possession according to the respective share of the
3. However, yet again on 11.04.2005, the plaintiffs filed an application for
grant of injunction in respect of the schedule B property seeking to restrain
the respondents from transferring or letting out any portion of the land to any
An order of injunction was issued on the said application dated 05.03.2004
but the same was refused in respect of the application dated 11.04.2005 by an
order dated 16.07.2005. An appeal was preferred thereagainst which was marked
as F.M.A. No. 988 of 2005.
4. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 10.08.2006 for default as
process fee was not deposited. It was, however, restored to its original file.
Immediately thereafter, however, the appellants allegedly put a padlock in flat
No. 201 which was in occupation of the first respondent. On or about
14.08.2006, an application was filed by him before the 8th Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Alipore inter alia praying for:
"9. Your petitioner states that the plaintiff by show of muscle and at
the instance of musclemen in their side causing obstruction to use and enjoy
the flat no. 201 of the 'B' schedule property to your petitioner. Your
petitioner is a bachelor and aged about 72 years and has become totally
perplexed as he has not been allowed to use and enjoy in his own property. Your
petitioner further states that after construction by the promoter three flats
and three car parking spaces allotted to the owners of three flats and as has
been observed by the ld.
Court but the plaintiffs carrying a fig to court's law and order causing
obstruction, inconvenience to your petitioner to use and enjoy the flat no. 201
of the 'B' schedule property by putting padlock and keeping sundry household
5. By an order dated 21.09.2006, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
while disposing of FMA No. 988 of 2005 directed as under:
"In such view of the matter, we dispose of this appeal and the
application by holding that the parties to the suit shall be entitled to
maintain their respective possession in the suit properties as on today without
being entitled to make any change in the nature and character of the same. It
is, however, made clear that if there be any pending application before the
Trial Court by alleging that since after making of the impugned order by the
trial court, a change has been made by some of the parties in respect of the
respective possession by force and/ or illegality, then the trial court will be
entitled to deal with the said application and to pass an appropriate orders
irrespective of the above order of disposal of this appeal."
6. By an order dated 21.11.2006, the learned Civil Judge allowed the
application dated 14.08.2006 holding:
"From the order of the Hon'ble High Court it is palpably clear that
full liberty has been given to the Trial Court to dispose of the application of
the defendant no. 1 filed u/s 151 CPC in accordance with the law. It is already
stated in my foregoing discussion that the materials on record go to show that
defendant no. 1 is in possession of flat No. 201 of Schedule 'B' property while
the plaintiffs are contending that they are in possession of the said flat.
Considering the objection it is crystal clear that the defence version that the
plaintiffs illegally put padlock and kept some sundry articles in the said flat
Under the facts and circumstances I think that the plaintiff's should not be
allowed to take the law in their own hands, and they are not supposed to make
any obstruction to the defendant No. 1 in peaceful enjoyment of flat No. 201 of
Schedule 'B' property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are hereby directed to remove
the padlock and sundry articles from flat no. 201 immediately and they are
hereby restrained from making any further obstruction to the defendant no. 1 in
peaceful enjoyment of the said flat. "
7. In the meanwhile, however, a preliminary decree was passed in the suit.
8. Appellants filed a revision application before the High Court against the
said order dated 21.11.2006 which by reason of the impugned judgment has been
"It further appears from the said reports that an interim mandatory
order of injunction can be passed only in circumstances which are clear and the
prima facie materials clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been
altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice
demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory
It was furthermore observed:
"Thus it cannot be said that in the present case there is no prima
facie finding by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, in the present facts and
circumstances of the case, the said reported case cannot be of any help to the
petitioners. It is clear that the learned Trial Court after having recorded its
prima facie finding in respect of possession by the respective parties in
respect of the 'B' schedule property, the learned Trial Court disposed of the
application for injunction on contest."
9. The High Court noticed the discrepancies in the averments made by the
plaintiffs at different stages of the proceedings and upon consideration of the
rival submissions opined:
"It appears from the materials on record, as already discussed above,
and after having considered the respective submissions made by the learned
counsels for the respective parties, as already discussed above, that the
defendant no. 1 has been in possession of the said flat no. 201 at all material
times. Copies of certain documents which have been annexed to the
affidavit-in-opposition, as discussed above, shows that the learned Trial Court
was not in error in making a prima facie finding with regard to the respective
possession of the parties in the 'B' schedule property. It further appears that
the plaintiffs/ petitioners at the initial stage did not dispute the possession
of the defendant no. 1 in respect of the said flat no. 201 but only at a later
stage the plaintiffs/ petitioners became interested in denying the possession
of the defendant no. 1 in respect of flat no. 201. The plaintiffs/ petitioners
could not substantiate their claim in respect of the said flat no. 201 by any
10. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, submitted that keeping in view the nature of preliminary decree
passed by the learned Civil Judge, the Trial Judge as also the High Court
committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment.
It was urged that the parties being co-owners and a final decree in the suit
having not yet been passed, it is impermissible in law to pass an order of
mandatory injunction and that too without arriving at a definite conclusion
that the first respondent was in exclusive possession of Flat No. 201.
11. Mr. Animesh Kanti Ghosal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
first respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment.
12. There cannot be any doubt or dispute as a general proposition of law
that possession of one co-owner would be treated to be possession of all.
This, however, in a case of this nature would not mean that where three
flats have been allotted jointly to the parties, each one of them cannot be in
occupation of one co-owner separately.
We have noticed hereinbefore that the plaintiffs appellants themselves in
no uncertain terms admitted that by reason of mutual adjustment the parties had
been in separate possession of three flats, viz., flat Nos. 201, 202 and 301.
If they were in possession of the separate flats, plaintiffs as co-owners could
not otherwise have made any attempt to dispossess the first respondent by
putting a padlock. The padlock, according to the first respondent, as noticed
hereinbefore, was put by the plaintiffs appellants immediately after the
appeal preferred by them in the High Court was dismissed.
13. The padlock was directed to be removed by the learned Civil Judge by an
order dated 21.11.2006. We do not find any illegality therein.
It is now a well-settled principle of law that Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code
of Civil Procedure (Code) is not the sole repository of the power of the court
to grant injunction.
Section 151 of the Code confers power upon the court to grant injunction if
the matter is not covered by Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code. [See
Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527 and
India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. (2007)
5 SCC 510]
14. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Banerjee on a judgment of Bombay
High Court in Bhaguji Bayaji Pokale & Ors. v. Kantilal Baban Gunjawate
& Ors. [1998 (3) CCC 377 (Bom.)] wherein it was held:
"7. With regard to second substantial question of law, i.e. the
co-owner cannot claim an order of injunction against another co-owner with
regard to the property owned jointly, the learned Counsel for the appellants
had relied upon the Apex Court's judgment reported in Mohammad Baqar and others
v. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi and others. The Apex Court has very categorically held in
para No. 7 as under:
"The parties to the action are co-sharers, and as under the law,
possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers, it cannot be
adverse to them, unless there is a denial of their right to their knowledge by
the person in possession, and exclusion and ouster following thereon for the
It was observed :
"Similarly, the legal position that the co-owner or co-sharer of the
property can never claim ownership by adverse possession of the other share.
This is also a well settled law."
We are concerned in this case with a question whether if a co-owner was in
specific possession of the joint property, he could be dispossessed therefrom
without the intervention of the court. In this case, the first respondent is
not claiming title of adverse possession. The said decision has, therefore, no
application to the fact of the present case.
15. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Banerjee in Abu Shahid v.
Abdul Hoque Dobhash and another [AIR 1940 Cal 363], Hemanta Kumar Banerjee
and others v. Satish Chandra Banerjee and others [AIR 1941 Cal 635] and Jahuri
Sah and others v. Dwarika Prasad Jhunjhunwala and others [AIR 1967 SC 109].
In Abu Shahid (supra), the question which arose for consideration was in
regard to plea of ouster vis-`-vis rendition of accounts. We are not concerned
with such a question in this case.
In Hemanta Kumar Banerjee and others (supra), the question which arose for
consideration was as to whether the rule against partition amongst co-sharers
is an elastic one. Again, we are not concerned with such a question here.
In Jahuri Sah (supra), this Court opined:
"12. What we have to consider then is whether the contract for payment
of compensation is not enforceable. It is no doubt true that under the law
every co-owner of undivided property is entitled to enjoy the whole of the
property and is not liable to pay compensation to the other co-owners who have
not chosen to enjoy the property. It is also true that liability to pay
compensation arises against a co-owner who deliberately excludes the other
co-owners from the enjoyment of the property. It does not, however, follow that
the liability to pay compensation arises only in such a case and no other.
Co-owners are legally competent to come to any kind of arrangement for the
enjoyment of their undivided property and are free to lay down any terms
concerning the enjoyment of the property. There is no principle of law which
would exclude them from providing in the agreement that those of them as are in
actual occupation and enjoyment of the property shall pay to the other
These observations do not assist the case of the appellants. If parties by
mutual agreement entered into possession of separate flats, no co-sharer should
be permitted to act in breach thereof.
16. It is not the law that a party to a suit during pendency thereof shall
take law into his hands and dispossess the other co-sharer.
If a party takes recourse to any contrivance to dispossess another, during
pendency of the suit either in violation of the order of injunction or
otherwise, the court indisputably will have jurisdiction to restore the parties
back to the same position.
In Israil & Others v. Samset Rahman & Others [(1914) 18 Cal WN 176 ;
AIR 1914 Cal 362], Mookerjee, J. held that a co-owner being in exclusive
possession of a joint property would be entitled to injunction. If a person is
entitled to a prohibitory injunction, a' fortiori he shall also be entitled to
a mandatory injunction. [See also Spandan Diagnostic & Research Centre Private Limited & Ors. v. Shri Ritendra Nath Ghosh &
Ors. 2000 (2) Cal LT 83]
17. We are not oblivious of a judgment of this Court in Kishore Kumar
Khaitan & Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh [(2006) 3 SCC 312], wherein one of us
(Sinha, J.) was a member, where it was held:
"14. Thus, prima facie, we find that the tenancy claimed by the
plaintiff remains to be proved in the suit. For the present, we should say that
prima facie, the plaintiff has not been able to establish the foundation for
the possession claimed by him. It is significant to note that not even another
tenant of the building among the various tenants in the building, was examined
to establish that the plaintiff while in possession, had been dispossessed on
20-6-1998 as claimed by him. Any way, the Additional District Judge has not
referred to any such evidence except referring to the affidavit of Shivanand
Mishra, who even according to the plaintiff was no more in occupation. Thus,
the disturbance of the status quo by the defendants has not been established.
Thus, prima facie it is clear that the plaintiff has not laid the foundation
for the grant of an interim order of mandatory injunction in his favour. The
order so passed by the Additional District Judge, and confirmed by the High
Court, therefore, calls for interference in this appeal."
18. The fact situation obtaining herein, however, is absolutely different. In this case, such a foundational fact has not only been raised by the
respondents, the appellants admitted the factual scenario in that behalf. No
party, it is trite, ordinarily should be allowed to take benefit of his own
19. For the reasons aforementioned and particularly having regard to the
fact situation obtaining herein, we are of the opinion that the impugned
judgments warrant no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with
costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.