Judgment:
The suit has been filed inter alia claming a decree adjudging the five Deeds of Gift, one dated 28th September, 1995, three dated 2nd September, 1996 and one dated 12th December, 1997, as void for delivery up and cancellation of the same.
The disputes in the instant case are family disputes. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 are brothers and the respondent no.1 is the son of the respondent no.2. The proforma respondent is the sister of the petitioner and the respondent no.2. It appears that Smt. Dhanka Devi, mother of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was absolute owner of the land and premises situated at 13, Camac Street, Kolkata - 700 017, measuring about 37 cottahs and 17 Chittaks.
The land was apparently leased to Tara Properties Private Limited, by a registered Deed of Lease executed in 1963. The said Tara Properties Private Limited constructed a multistoried building, Gagantara. Subsequently, the northern side of the premises was surrendered by Tara Properties Private Limited back to Smt. Dhanka Devi. Smt. Dhanka Devi had another multistoried building, Rajkamal, built thereat. By the deeds impugned in the suit, the properties covered by the deeds have purportedly been transferred by Smt. Dhanka Devi to the respondent no.1, son of the respondent no.2. It, however, appears that there were litigations pending between mother and son. Smt. Dhanka Devoi had herself filed a suit against the respondent no.2.
The purported deeds were executed purportedly through the pen of the respondent no.2 stated to be the Constituted Attorney of Dhanka Devi. It prima facie appears suspicious that Dhanka Devi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the very son, against whom she had initiated litigation.
Moreover, as pointed out by Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the deeds were registered in Mumbai. The property being situated at Calcutta, there could be no plausible reason for having the deed registered in Mumbai. The above observations are prima facie observations.
The issues need to be adjudicated in the suit upon evidence. However, the balance of convenience is in favour of grant of interim orders, as prayed for in this petition, pending adjudication of the suit, for transfer, alienation and/or creation of third party rights will cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioner, and also give rise to multiplicity of proceedings.
There will accordingly be an order of injunction in terms of prayers (c) and (d) pending disposal of the suit being C.S. No.228 of 2004. Application, being G.A. No.4171 of 2004, is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.