Dismissed

Khudi Ram Mahato v. Mukesh Sharma And Anr.

Jharkhand HC23 Oct 2018WPC/5033/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition challenging civil orders in a title suit. The Court held that no infirmity existed in the lower courts' decisions dismissing the injunction application, noting concurrent findings against the petitioner who failed to establish a prima facie case of title.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the impugned order contained no infirmity as the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of title.

Khudi Ram Mahato Vs Mukesh Sharma And Anr. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5033 of 2017

¶2

¶3

Khudi Ram Mahato, son of late Ananto Mahato, R/o Bagalgora, PO & PS-Galudih, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum

¶4

… Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner --Versus--

¶5

1.Mukesh Sharma, son of Murli Sharma 2.Rupali Sharma, wife of Mukesh Sharm

¶6

Both resident of Mahatopara Road, Jugsalai, PO & PSJugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶7

… Defendants/Respondents

¶8

--- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --For the Petitioner : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : -- ---

¶9

5/ 23.10.2018 The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.100 of 2015, is aggrieved of order dated 23.05.2017 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.3 of 2016.

¶10

By the impugned order challenge by the petitioner to the order dated 21.07.2016 passed in the suit by which his application for injunction has been declined, has been affirmed by the appellate court.

¶11

At the outset, it needs to be recorded that two courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. Claim of the petitioner is founded on the plea that he is descendent of the recorded tenant whereas, the defendants have staked a claim over the suit land by virtue of a sale-deed. Prima-facie, the defendants have disclosed their title over the suit land. Whether the petitioner can claim a right, title or interest over the suit land being descendant of the recorded tenant or not is an issue, which in face of the sale-deed executed in favour of the defendants, shall be examined during the trial, but as of now the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima-facie case.

¶12

Viewed thus, and for the aforesaid reasons, particularly in view of prima-facie evidence of title shown by the defendants, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 23.05.2017 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶13

( Shree Chandrashekhar, J. )

¶14

SI/,

Khudi Ram Mahato v. Mukesh Sharma And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khudi Ram Mahato v. Mukesh Sharma And Anr.

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

Sarbinder Singh Vs Bed Vikash

Md Najmul Hoda Vs Sk Mujibar Rahman And Anr.

Smt Anjali Rudra Vs Prakash Munjal And Ors.

Smt Nirawati Devi And Anr. Vs Smt Chudawati Devi And Ors.

Sajani Devi Vs Smt Chhobia Mahatain And Ors.

Bhola Gosai And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.