LRS and others reported in [2008 (6) CTC 237], when the title of the plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction is disputed, the Court shall not enter into the issue of title, but could relegate the parties to seek declaration. In the instant case, the defendants have produced the earliest order of the competent authority viz., order passed in 1972 and the subsequent document pursuant to the same. The document produced by the plaintiff vide Ex.A4 was in respect of the same property. The competent authority declares that it was mistakenly issued. In that event, proof of legitimate possession of the property cast upon the plaintiff. But the first appellate Court in order to grant the relief, picked up holes in the sale deed executed by the original allottee and strived to disprove the title of the defendants. The issue of title is not relevant unless it is seriously disputed. But, the title of defendants has been seriously examined without any material in order to confer title and relief in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the first appellate Court, while deciding the issue of injunction, had exceeded the jurisdiction and ventured into the issue of title and had given declaration of title and also set aside the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of issuance of patta. This finding of the first appellate Court declaring the title of plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction is beyond the scope of the suit. It is well settled that issue of grant of patta falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authority. The mechanism provides for an appeal and revision. When the matter is sub judice before the appellate authorities of the revenue department, the first appellate Court had usurped the jurisdiction of an Appellate Authority over the order of Revenue Divisional Officer. In such a view of the matter, the order of the first appellate Court is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and rely the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court is beyond the scope of the suit itself. Therefore, the Substantial Question of Law Nos.2 and 5 are answered in favour of the appellants.
