At the ad-interim stage, courts must assess plaintiffs’ materials without conducting a mini-trial.

The plaintiffs/appellants instituted a suit seeking declarations that conveyances executed by defendant nos. 1–9 in favour of defendant nos. 10–50 were void, inoperative and not binding upon them, together with consequential reliefs. They also sought an interim and ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession or creating any encumbrance or third-party interest in the suit property

The plaintiffs asserted that the property originally belonged to Lalmohan Bangal; that it vested in the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953; that korfa tenancies were thereafter created in favour of Lalmohan’s sons and nephews; and that those tenants, or their successors-in-interest, transferred the property to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs relied upon title deeds, Records of Rights, mutation records, RERA registration and a sanctioned building plan to establish a prima facie case of title and possession. The respondents disputed the plaintiffs’ title, alleged suppression of records showing bargadars, challenged the authenticity of the Records of Rights, and relied upon conveyances executed by Lalmohan’s daughters.

The Trial Court observed that the plaintiffs might have a good case for trial but refused ad-interim injunction on the ground that the injunction application should be heard in the presence of the other parties. The plaintiffs challenged that refusal in the present appeal.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law and on facts by refusing ad-interim injunction despite observing that the plaintiffs might have a good case for trial?

2. Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury warranting protection of their possession and restraint against creation of third-party interests?

3. Whether the respondents’ objections concerning the authenticity of the Records of Rights, alleged suppression, competing conveyances and pending litigation could be adjudicated at the ad-interim stage?

The Court applied the principles governing temporary and ad-interim injunctions under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely that the applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury; at this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or conclusively establish title, but only to determine whether a triable case exists.

The Court considered the statutory scheme of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, particularly Sections 4, 6, 44 and 45A, under which estates vest in the State, retention rights are dealt with, Records of Rights are prepared and entries are corrected.

It also noted that the plaintiffs’ asserted predecessors became raiyats under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Allegations of suppression or other grounds for vacating an injunction could be raised through an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC or by written objection before the Trial Court.

The Appellate Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning internally inconsistent: having recorded that the plaintiffs might have a good case for trial, it could not refuse ad-interim protection merely because the injunction application would eventually have to be heard after appearance of the other parties.

On an independent assessment of the plaintiffs’ materials, the Court held that the Records of Rights prima facie supported their case. The apparent reference to both Lalmohan Bangal and his sons and nephews was explained by their appearance under different entries—Lalmohan as the superior owner and the others as korfa tenants—rather than as a temporal inconsistency.

The alleged discrepancy concerning attestation of the record and the respondents’ objections involved factual issues requiring adjudication and could not justify refusal of interim protection at this stage.

The plaintiffs’ title documents, mutation, RERA registration, sanctioned plan and entries in the RS and LR Records of Rights constituted sufficient prima facie material.

Since interference with possession or creation of third-party interests could generate multiplicity of proceedings and cause irreparable prejudice, the balance of convenience and urgency favoured the plaintiffs.

The Court further held that the respondents could raise their allegations through written objections or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC before the Trial Court.

The appeal, FMA 761 of 2026, was allowed and the Trial Court’s order dated 15 May 2026 was set aside. The respondents and their men and agents were restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any third-party interest or encumbrance in the suit property until disposal of the pending temporary injunction application.

The Trial Court was directed to dispose of that application expeditiously after granting the respondents adequate opportunity to file written objections.

CAN 1, CAN 2 and CAN 3 of 2026 were consequentially disposed of; the findings were declared tentative and not binding at the final hearing of the injunction application or the suit.

There was no order as to costs.