Dismissed

Laldhari Singh v. Ranjit Singh

Jharkhand HC21 Nov 2022C.M.P./96/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the refusal of a temporary injunction in a suit for title to land. The single judge found no grounds for interference given the concurrent findings of facts by lower courts but directed the lower court to decide the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

The C.M.P. is dismissed and the lower court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

Laldhari Singh Vs Ranjit Singh — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 96 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

Laldhari Singh 2. Mahendra Singh .... .... …. Petitioners Versus

¶4

Ranjit Singh 2. Amrit Singh 3. Ramawatar Singh 4. Ratan Singh 5. Pradeep Singh 6. Kamachhaya Singh 7. Triloki Sao .... .... .... Opposite Parties

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :

¶7

Oral Order

¶8

04/ Dated : 21.11.2022

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel that surviving defects will be removed during course of day.

¶10

Instant petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.01.2022 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.01 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Judge, Chatra whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has refused the temporary injunction petition filed on behalf of petitioner.

¶11

Petitioners are the plaintiff of the case and the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over schedule property. The petitioners prayed to be heirs of the descendants of recorded Khatiyani Raiyats Sobhi Singh, Budhan Singh, Bihari Singh and Jhakhar Singh. The 14 plots were shown to be in possession of Sobhi Singh, Jhakhar Singh and rest plots were under the possession of Budhan Singh and Bihari Singh as per entries made in the remarks column of recorded rights.

¶12

After vesting the predecessor in interest, plaintiffs were recognized as descendants and they have been paying rent to the State.

¶13

The defendants/opposite party Nos.1-6 claimed title over the suit land and claimed to be paying rent regularly to the State on the basis of auction sale vide Sale Certificate Case No.74 of 1934-35 which was purchased by predecessor of the defendants. Further claim is that part of the land was settled by ex-landlord Gurucharan Singh by Hukumnama in Sambat 1934 in the year

¶14

1877 and receipt were issued and defendant No.7 purchased the land measuring an area 16 decimals on 10.06.1983 from defendant Nos.1-6.

¶15

Application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. has been rejected by the Trial Court as well as in appeal hence, this petition.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the claim of purchase in auction sale, is only with respect to 26 decimals whereas the said land comprises of 8 acres 22 decimals which is Khatiyani Raiyati land of plaintiffs. The second point raised on behalf of petitioners is that women had no absolute right to dispose of the property and had only a limited stay and therefore, sale deed executed in the year 1936 and 1942 did not confer any valid right, title and interest to the predecessor. Lastly, there has not been any reduction in the area as reflected in the revenue receipt being issued continuously thereafter.

¶17

On perusal of the record of the case, I find that there is concurrent findings of fact on the issue of temporary injunction passed by both the Courts below. In ECE Industries Limited Versus S.P. Real Estate Developers Private Limited & Another reported in (2009) 12 SCC 776 in which it has been held where there is concurrent finding refusing any injunction, it should not normally be interfered.

¶18

Under the circumstance the order of the learned Court below is not interfered with.

¶19

Learned Court below is directed to dispose of the instant suit within six months.

¶20

The C.M.P. is dismissed.

¶21

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶22

Anit

Laldhari Singh v. Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laldhari Singh v. Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Jharkhand Represented through the Principal Secretary Rural Development Department Vs Himanchal Construction Company Private Limited through Sri Bhupendra Nath Dikshit

Abdul Rab Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Kishore Sahu Vs Raaj Bardhan Jaiyaswal

Gopal Agrawal Vs Sandeep Kumar Sao

Smt Parul Singh Vs Special Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department

Munni Devi Vs Pratibha Singh