Dismissed

Ram Ekbal Sharma and Anr. v. Nawal Kishore Sharma and Ors.

Patna HC1 Oct 2012CWJC/4923/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil writ jurisdiction application challenging an appellate order that reversed a trial court decision denying an injunction. The writ petitioners sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, which the High Court dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The High Court dismissed the writ application and did not interfere with the lower appellate court's order granting the injunction.

Ram Ekbal Sharma and Anr. Vs Nawal Kishore Sharma and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4923 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Ram Ekbal Sharma 2. Ram Prasad Sharma Both sons of Late Ram Dayal Thakur, resident of village-Mauja Sabalpur, Newal Tola, Pargana Kasrnar, P.S. Sonepur, DistrictSaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Nawal Kishore Sharma, S/o Sri Desai Sharma, resident of villageMauja-Sabalpur, Newal Tola- Pargana Kasmar, P.S. Sonepur, District- Saran 2. Kapil Dev Sharma, S/o Late Ram Dayal Thakur 3. Mostt. Champa Kuar, W/o Jag Deyal Sharma Both are resident of village/Mauja Sabalpur, Newal Tola, Pargana Kasmar, P.S. Sonepur, District-Saran .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================

¶4

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶5

04. 01-10-2012 Heard Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶6

This application has been filed questioning the order dated 03.08.2009 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 67 of 2008 by the learned Additional District Judge-3^rd , Saran at Chapra whereby the learned appellate court below while allowing the appeal, has been pleased to reverse the order dated 22.09.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 397 of 2005 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saran at Chapra, to grant injunction.

¶7

The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffrespondent no. 1 seeking a declaration that the suit property is the purchased land of the plaintiff and over which he has title and

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.4923 of 2012 (4) dt.01-03-2012

¶9

¶10

possession. The plaintiff-respondent claims his right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of a registered sale deed executed by one Champa Kuar, widow of one of the cosharers on 10.06.2005. As the possession of the plaintiff was sought to be disturbed by the defendants, hence an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Trial Court and whereupon a report was called for through the Pleader Commissioner which was submitted on 25.06.2006 and the possession of the plaintiff was confirmed over the suit property. Despite the said report, the prayer of the petitioners was rejected by the Trial Court, inter alia, on grounds of absence of the prerequisites for grant thereof, and against which the appeal in question was preferred and which has since been allowed.

¶11

Perusal of the order impugned passed by the appellate court manifests that the appellate court after considering that the sale deed executed by Mostt. Champa Kuar in favour of the plaintiff was a registered document; that the plaintiff on the basis thereof had established his Naad, Khuta etc. which was supportive of his claim of possession thereof; and that the land of the defendants was adjacent to the suit property, found a prima facie case as also the balance of convenience being drawn in favour of the plaintiff.

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.4923 of 2012 (4) dt.01-03-2012

¶13

¶14

It is in this background that the learned appellate court was pleased to allow the appeal of the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 3 were restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The order passed by the learned appellate court is reasoned and is supportive of the opinion formed by him for allowing the prayer for injunction made by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1.

¶15

There being neither any infirmity nor any jurisdictional error in the order, I find no reasons to interfere with the same. This application is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶17

S.Sb/-

Ram Ekbal Sharma and Anr. v. Nawal Kishore Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ekbal Sharma and Anr. v. Nawal Kishore Sharma and Ors.

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

Shahabad Parish Society Vs Sri Baleshwar Kumar Ravi and Ors.

Alakhdeo Rai and Ors. Vs Suba Lal Paswan and Ors.

Rajendra Agricultural University and Anr. Vs Uma Rani Singh and Ors.

Arun Kumar Seth Vs Anand Kumar and Ors.

Durganath Tiwari @ Durga Tiwar Vs Rameshwar Sharma and Ors.

Sabbir Khan Vs Sajjad Ahmad Khan