S/L 01+02 13.02.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N F.M.A. 1862 of 2019 With CAN 2 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 8744 of 2019) Sri Sukumar Dey Vs. Sri Swapan Kumar Dey & Ors. In F.M.A. 1863 of 2019 Sri Sukumar Dey Vs. Sri Swapan Kumar Dey & Ors. (ASSIGNED) Mrs. Sohini Chakrabarty, Ms. Prajaaini Das … for the Appellant. Mr. Srikrishna Samanta … for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2. 1. The two appeals have been filed arising out of an order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Arambagh, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 06 of 2017. 2. The application being CAN 8744 of 2019 is taken up for hearing. 3. Through the said application the appellant/petitioner has sought for permission to construct a structure which has already been sanctioned by the Mandaron Gram Panchayat, Hooghly. 4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to construct upon about 775 square feet of land as per the plan which has already 2 been sanctioned by the Mandaron Gram Panchayet, Hooghly and she further submits that the petitioner undertakes not to claim any equity in respect to the said construction. She further submits that the petitioner undertakes to demolish the proposed structures if it is found that such construction has been made in excess of his share. 5. The learned counsel representing the respondent opposite parties raises an apprehension that the proposed construction might be beyond the sanctioned plan and might cause hindrance to the proper utilization of the other co-sharers. 6. From the submissions of the learned counsels it transpires that the plot of land was originally 27 satak of land, out of which 8 satak of land has been acquired much earlier by the P.W.D. Remaining 19 satak of land are with the co-sharers who are contending in the lis. So from the facts it transpires that there are three (3) sets of co-sharers so each set of co-sharers would get at least more than 2 satak of land in his favour. In such circumstance when the petitioner has sought for permission to construct upon 2 satak of land, according to this Court the petitioner can be permitted to do so and there is no impediment in this regard, subject to the construction being made as per the plan sanctioned by the Mandaron Gram Panchayat, Hooghly and the above noted undertaking regarding non claiming of equities. 3 7. The order of injunction passed by the Trial Court is modified to such extent only. 8. Application CAN 8744 of 2019 is disposed of. 9. There is no dispute between the parties that in view of the order being passed today nothing survives in the appeals, the appeals are accordingly disposed of. 10. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)