The High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed to quash orders rejecting an application for temporary injunction in a suit to declare sale deeds void, finding no infirmity as the suit was filed after 12 years of execution.
The instant CMP stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 776 of 2022
Mihir Mahato .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, AC to GP-I
…... 03/ 02.12.2022 . Defect no.3, as pointed out by the office is hereby ignored for the
present.
The instant CMP has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.07.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Jamshedpur, in Original Title Suit No.44 of 2018 and the order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.02 of 2021, whereby the application filed for grant of temporary injunction has been rejected.
Petitioner is the plaintiff and the said suit has been filed for declaration that the six sale deeds mentioned in Schedule-B to B/5 executed by and between defendant nos.2 to 7 transferring the tanks and its ridges to be void and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff(s).
It is submitted that as per the case of plaintiff/ petitioner, the suit property stood recorded in the name of Bholanath Mahato, Bishwanath Mahato and Ajit Mahato and this petitioner / plaintiff is the son of said Bishwanath Mahato. There has not been any partition with respect to the suit property and the property is being transferred and the purchasers were changing the nature of the suit land.
It appears that the learned courts below have rejected the petition for temporary injunction on the ground that the suit for declaring the sale-deed to be null and void has been brought after 12 years of the execution of the said deeds. The defendants have been in continuous possession since the time of the purchase of the land. Further there is concurrent findings while dismissing the temporary injunction petition.
Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the instant CMP stands dismissed.
( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )
Sandeep/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any infirmity in the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction to declare sale deeds void.
Mihir Mahato
State of Jharkhand
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
