Dismissed

Murari Sahu v. Aashkaran Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2023WP227/529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging orders rejecting an interim injunction application. The Court held that an injunction cannot be granted against a registered sale deed unless set aside by a civil court and directed the trial court to complete the pending suit within a specific timeline.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Trial directed to conclude within one year and six months.

Murari Sahu Vs Aashkaran Sahu — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 529 of 2022

¶5

Murari Sahu S/o Shri Ramdayal Sahu, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Aamdi, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.Aashkaran Sahu S/o Shri Mangluram Sahu, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Aamdi,tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2.Kamta Sahu S/o Shri Mangluram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Aamdi, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3.Smt. Shabana W/o Bashir Ahmed Musalman, Aged About 27 Years R/o Nayapara Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4.Rahmat Ali S/o Ibrahim Ali, R/o Nawagaon Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5.Chandrika Prasad Dhidi, S/o Shri Mahetaruram Dhidi, R/o Village Uslapur, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6.State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Office of The Collector Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Respondents

¶15

For the Petitioner Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For the State Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Dy.GA

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

24.11.2023.

¶19

1.The plaintiff has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge, FTC Damtari in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2021 by which the plaintiff’s appeal against the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-1 in Civil Suit No. 59-A/2019 rejecting the prayer for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been affirmed.

¶20

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the civil Suit for permanent injunction, declaration of sale deed dated 04.04.2018 as null and void mainly contending that the petitioner is resident of village Ahmadi and the suit property bearing Khasra No.1355 area 0.11 hectare has been received by the plaintiff after partition but in the revenue record name of the plaintiff and his forefather could not be entered. The defendant No. 3 has made attempt to take possession of the suit property with intention to record his name in the revenue record whereas the plaintiff have already become the owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession. Thus he has filed the suit for declaration and possession and also prayed for declaration of sale deed dated 04.04.2018 to be null and void as the defendant without any authority has sold this property.

¶22

The defendant filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint and contending that the suit land belongs to them only and would pray for rejection of the suit.

¶23

The plaintiff has also filed an application under 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the defendant from mutation of land or taking possession themselves or through any other person. The defendant filed reply to this application and learned trial Court vide its order dated 08.10.2021 has rejected the same by recording its finding that the suit land has already been sold through registered sale deed on 04.04.2018 and defendant No. 3 is in possession of the suit property, therefore, the balance of convience, irreparable loss or prima facie case which are essential ingredients for grant of injunction is not available to the petitioner and accordingly it has rejected the same. Being aggrieved with this order the plaintiff has preferred miscellaneous appeal which has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court. Both these orders are being challenged in this petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court towards the statements recorded in the proceedings recorded under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code wherein certain statements have been made by the respondents, therefore, he would submit that the trial Court has committed illegality in not considering the statements of the defendants while considering the pray for grant of injunction. He would further submit that the first Appellate Court has also committed illegality in not interfering the order passed by the trial Court and would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶25

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the statement recorded in the Revenue proceedings can not relief upon unless and until it is subjected to cross-examination before the Civil Court. He would further submit that they have purchased the property through registered sale deed and they are in possession of the suit property, therefore, the trial court as well as the first appellate court have not committed illegality in rejecting the application and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

From the record it is not in dispute that the suit property was purchased by the defendants on 04.04.2018 through registered sale deed wherein it is clearly mentioned that the possession has been given whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property or not can only be decided after recording the evidence even the plaintiff has filed the suit for possession as well as declaration of the sale deed dated 04.04.2018 to be as null and void. This clearly establish that the respondent No.3 is having sale deed in her favour as such no injunction can be granted against the registered sale deed unless the sale deed is set aside by the Civil Court. In the present case the suit is pending before the Civil Court, considering this aspect of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order, as such, the writ petition is deserves to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the relief claimed by the plaintiff is final relief which can be considered when the trial is decided as such also the plaintiff is not entitled to get any injunction and the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application for grant of injunction as well as appeal which warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Further considering the fact that the suit was filed on 01.10.2019, more than 3 years has already been lapsed and the case is fixed for evidence, considering this aspect of the matter, it is directed that trial Court shall make an endavour to complete the trial within outer limit of one year and six months from the date when the matter is fixed for plaintiff’s evidence for the first time. It is also directed that the plaintiff and defendant will cooperate with the trial Court for disposal early disposal of the suit within time scheduled given by this Court.

¶30

¶31

With this direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶34

Santosh

Murari Sahu v. Aashkaran Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Sahu v. Aashkaran Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Sahu Vs Bharat Sahu

Janpad Panchayat Surajpur Vs Union of India

Bhuneshwar Prasad Vs Smt. Radha Verma

Smt. Neha Thakur Vs Durgesh Thakur

Ashish Yadav Vs Smt. Vandana Yadav