RANCHI, India, Sept. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 7:

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Ganesh Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This instant second appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 29.02.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No.07 of 1994 confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.02.1994 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Rajmahal in Title Suit No.43 of 1985

3. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 18.02.1998 on following substantial question of law :-

"Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffsrespondents was maintainable in absence of any prayer for declaring title?"

4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed Title Suit No.43 of 1985 before the Court of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Rajmahal for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking the possession or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. Further prayer of the plaintiffs is that order passed by the Residential Magistrate refusing to send the records after the records called for by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all orders thereafter as void.

Initially, the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the SubDivisional Officer, Sahibganj which was later on transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Sahibganj and numbered as Title Suit No.43 of 1985. It is claimed by plaintiffs that they are owners of the suit Schedule land. It is further alleged that mother of the plaintiff Kedar Nath Mandal namely Savitri Devi acquired the suit land in Court auction and got delivery of possession of the same on 27.06.1940 from the Certificate Officer. The defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the suit land and merely on the basis of collusive mutation, the defendants without any valid right and in suppression of order passed by Dy. Commissioner are adamant to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suits Schedule land. Therefore, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated vide Miscellaneous Case No.258 of 1984. The plaintiffs filed an application under Section 411 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Officer who called for the records from the Court of Residential Magistrate vide order dated 17.11.1984, which was not sent rather order was passed on 01.12.1984. The plaintiffs also filed a petition for time before the Resident Magistrate to not to execute the order and provide some time for filing revision before the Hon'ble High Court but the petition was also rejected on 05.12.1984 and case was fixed for ex-parte order on 10.12.1984. On that basis, the defendants forcibly took possession of the suit land, situated in Plot Nos.6, 7 and 844 measuring an area of 6 Bighas 1 Kathas 4 Dhurs.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=vw8LnZcqP4VRvcwMiW2ir1nAXl8cgwqxD7Sn43v%2BI1ITENorWbApqAbUnpVg%2B3aM&caseno=SA/9900097/1996&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010008401996&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.