RANCHI, India, Jan. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 18:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. The instant civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division-I), Deoghar in Title Suit No.163 of 2015, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff under section 6 of Specific Relief Act granting relief of the recovery of the possession over the suit property.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the land appertaining to Jamabandi No.48/20, Plot No.335 was originally recorded in the name of Sukar Dom during last Survey Settlement known of Gantzer's Settlement of the year 1932 as Basouri land. The recorded tenant died leaving behind a son Marihan Mirdha, who sold a portion of the said land comprising area 2 decimals to one Md. Hussain through registered sale deed dated 30.11.1985. The purchaser, Md. Hussain got mutated his name in the Circle Officer, Deoghar vide Mutation Case No.351/1985-86 and his name was entered into Register-II. The said Md. Hussain sold 380 sq. ft. of his said land to the plaintiff Smt. Bandana Devi through registered sale deed dated 19.04.2001. The said land is 10ft. x 38ft. in area. It is further alleged that the said Md. Hussain sold the rest of the land to another person Mr. Arvind. After purchasing 380 sq. ft. land, the plaintiff constructed asbestos roof room/hall over her purchased land within area measuring 10ft. x 20ft. from the east to west and 18 ft. of land was left opened towards west side for other use. It is further alleged that in absence of the plaintiff, the defendant has encroached upon the said vacant portion of the land of the plaintiff towards the western side measuring 10 ft. x 18 ft. by putting asbestos sheet over the boundary wall and making as a room and taken possession over the land in the month of Sarvan, 2015 i.e. in or about 10.08.2015 to 20.08.2015. When the plaintiff along with her husband returned on 25.08.2015 and went to see her land and room, they found that the defendant had made asbestos room over his vacant portion of land towards western side, which is fully described in the suit scheduled and sketch map attached with the plaint. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit scheduled property but he flatly denied and threatened for dire consequences. The defendant/ original petitioner, Ramchandra Mridha had filed a Title Suit No.105 of 2000 in the court of learned Sub Judge for declaring the same in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff namely, Md. Husain dated 30.11.1985 as void and the said sale deed was held to be valid up to 1 and half decimal land out of total 2 decimals vide judgment dated 17.05.2006. The defendant/ original petitioner also preferred an appeal i.e. Title Appeal No.23 of 2006 and cross appeal was filed by the plaintiff vide Title Appeal No.24 of 2006 in the court of District Judge, Deoghar. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of through common judgment and Title Appeal No.23 of 2015 filed by Ramchandra Mirdha was dismissed holding that Ramchandra Mirdha was not the adopted son of Marihan Mirdha and Title Appeal No.24 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the sale deed of 2 decimals of land in favour of Md. Hussain was declared legal. The suit land was all along in peaceful possession of the plaintiff since after her purchase. Therefore, she is entitled for recovery of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WlS40WCrXd%2BGZVGG4lHFUYVRqis2or2FlDUluv6Tg5SB&caseno=C.R./34/2019&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010216092019&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
