11 03.09.2026 Court No.11 J.Das CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE FMAT 16 OF 2025 IA No.CAN/1/2025 SRI RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. VS SMT. ANJANI DEVI GUPTA Mr. Bapi Sarkar Mr. Roumyadip Saha …For the appellants 1. Affidavit of Service filed by the appellants be kept with the records. Notwithstanding receipt, the respondent remains unrepresented. 2. This appeal is against an ad interim order dated 23 April 2025. 3. Briefly, the suit is for cancellation of a registered sale deed and for consequential reliefs. Upon filing of the suit, the impugned order came to be passed whereby an ad interim injunction was granted restraining the appellants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and from not encroaching upon the suit premises or alienating, transferring or creating any third party rights in respect thereof. 4. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit premises and had unknowingly and fraudulently signed a sale deed which is assailed in this proceeding. It has also been alleged that though the plaintiff had received a sum 2 of Rs.36 lacs by way of two separate demand drafts from the appellants, the same was a loan and not the purchase consideration. The plaintiff also alleges that they were under the wrong belief that they were signing a deed of mortgage and not of a deed of sale. 5. Prima facie, upon a perusal of the sale deed, it appears that the same is an outright deed of sale and there is no whisper of a security or mortgage being created. On a reading of sale deed it also does not appear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises. On the contrary, it has been stated that upon execution of the sale deed and payment of the entire consideration, possession has been handed over to the appellants. The name in the Records of Rights is also that of the appellants and not the plaintiff. 6. For the above reasons, the restraint on the appellants insofar as disturbing the alleged possession of the plaintiff/respondent is concerned is prima facie unsustainable. However, insofar as the injunction relating to alienation, transfer and creating any third party interest is concerned, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that they do not intend to create any such right, the same does not require any interference. In such circumstances, the appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case for interference of the impugned order on merits. 3 7. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury is also in favour of orders being passed as prayed for by the appellants. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order is modified to the extent that even though no third party rights insofar as alienation and transfer is concerned is not interfered with, the restraint order insofar as disturbing the alleged possession of the plaintiff is concerned is set aside. The impugned order is interfered with to the above extent only. 9. It is made clear that all the above findings are tentative in nature and are not to be treated as binding on the Trial Court when disposing of the application finally. 10. In view of the earlier order dated 31 August 2026, the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to be heard expeditiously on merits. 11. To that extent, the appeal stands allowed. FMAT 16 of 2025 alongwith the connected interlocutory application stand disposed of. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Supratim Bhattacharya, J.]