High Court rules in favor of plaintiff in partition suit, excludes 'A' Schedule property. Rehearing injunction application required for clear ownership evidence.

The High Court of Calcutta ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a partition suit, excluding the 'A' Schedule property from the partition. The Court directed the Trial Court to rehear the injunction application based on previous decrees, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of ownership. The appellants were instructed to submit necessary documents within a specified timeframe. The Court maintained the status quo for 'A' Schedule Property and instructed the appellants to communicate the order promptly. The appeal and stay application were disposed of, with certified copies of the order provided upon request.

---

---

Issues involved:
Appeal against order of injunction in a suit for partition, consideration of decree passed in previous suits, determination of ownership of Schedule 'A' property, rehearing of injunction application, submission of necessary documents, decision on 'A' Schedule Property within four weeks, continuation of status quo, communication of order to Trial Court and respondents.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed an appeal arising from an order of injunction in a partition suit, specifically focusing on the ownership of Schedule 'A' property. The appellants contended that the Trial Court erred in granting the injunction based on a previous decree from Title Suit No.17 of 2011 and Title Suit No.2419 of 2014. The Court noted discrepancies in the timing of the supplementary objection filed by the appellants and the subsequent decree, highlighting that the decree was passed after the objection was affirmed. The Court emphasized the need for clear evidence to establish ownership, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the property was purchased by a specific individual and that the defendant was a trustee. Consequently, the Court found in favor of the plaintiff regarding the exclusion of 'A' Schedule property from the partition suit.

The Court directed the Trial Court to rehear the injunction application, considering the decree from the previous suits without being influenced by the High Court's observations. The appellants were instructed to submit necessary documents supporting their claim over 'A' Schedule Property within a specified timeframe, with the respondents given the opportunity to file a rejoinder. The Trial Court was tasked with deciding the issue concerning 'A' Schedule Property within four weeks after completion of pleadings, allowing the Trial Judge to proceed with the suit in other aspects independently.

Regarding the status quo of other properties, the Court decided not to interfere with the existing finding. The order of status quo for 'A' Schedule Property was to be maintained for a set period or until the Trial Judge disposed of the matter in accordance with the High Court's directives. The appellants were responsible for communicating the Court's order to the Trial Court and respondents promptly. Ultimately, the appeal and the application for stay were disposed of, with the Court providing certified copies of the order upon request and undertaking.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues addressed by the High Court of Calcutta and the detailed decision-making process undertaken in resolving the appeal related to the partition suit and the injunction order concerning Schedule 'A' property.

---