A co-owner’s demarcated sale does not sever jointness absent partition by metes and bounds through decree or registered deed.

The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 instituted a partition suit concerning the disputed property and obtained a temporary injunction restraining alteration of the nature and character of the suit property by Order No. 7 dated 8 June 2026 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur.

Defendant no. 5/appellant challenged the injunction, contending that Aparna Das, the alleged vendor/exchanger in favour of the plaintiff, had transferred a specifically demarcated portion and that the property was therefore not joint.

The appellant also claimed to have invested substantial sums and obtained a sanctioned building plan for construction on his allegedly demarcated portion, although construction had not commenced.

The plaintiff alleged that the proposed construction would destroy or encroach upon a common passage adjoining the property received through the exchange deed.

The appellant further disputed the exchange deed as fraudulent, while the plaintiff contended that this implicitly acknowledged the deed’s existence and raised a triable issue.

The Court applied Section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, holding that jointness is not disturbed unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds through a competent court’s partition decree or a registered deed of partition, even where a co-owner has transferred a demarcated portion.

It distinguished Sm. Labanya Bala Debi v. Sm. Parul Bala Debi, 77 CWN 272, and Sk. Samser Ali v. Serina Bibi, 2012 (2) CHN 694, where a single original owner had transferred specified portions of the property; such cases did not involve a co-owner transferring part of jointly held property.

Temporary injunction requires consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and inconvenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury.

An appellate court may supply additional reasons where it agrees with the Trial Court’s conclusion, despite the Trial Court not expressing each test in precise terms.

The Court held that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case that Aparna Das was herself a co-owner of the entire property and that her exchange of a demarcated portion did not, at the interlocutory stage, sever the property’s joint character in the absence of partition by metes and bounds.

The appellant’s allegation that the exchange deed was fraudulent raised a matter requiring evidence at trial and could not conclusively defeat the injunction application.

Since construction had not commenced, and the proposed construction allegedly threatened a common passage, the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the existing state of the property.

Construction could cause irreversible consequences and prejudice the plaintiff’s rights if the partition suit ultimately succeeded, thereby satisfying the requirement of irreparable injury.

Although the Trial Court had not expressly stated the three injunction tests in exact terms, its reasoned consideration of the parties’ contentions and materials justified affirmance.

The Court held that the alleged demarcated transfer by a co-owner did not, at the interlocutory stage, establish severance of the jointly owned property under Section 14 of the 1955 Act, and that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for temporary injunction.

CAN 1 of 2026 was disposed of accordingly.

The Trial Court was requested to endeavour to dispose of the partition suit expeditiously, preferably within one year from communication of the order; there was no order as to costs.