Sushil Minz And Others vs Mukut Ajay Dan Minz And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3907 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            S. A. No. 149 of 2004

Sushil Minz and others                      ....   ....    Appellants
                            Versus
Mukut Ajay Dan Minz and others          .... .... Respondents
                            ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing Mode) Oral Order 24 / Dated : 20.10.2021

I.A. No. 3749 of 2021

This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the

appellants directing the respondents to maintain the status-quo upon the

lands appertaining to Khata No. 17 measuring an area of 17.15 acres and

Bhunhari Khata No. 124 measuring an area of 11.02 acres situated at

Village Rani Khatanga, P.S.-Bero, District-Ranchi.

The prayer for status-quo has been made mainly on the ground that

vide report dated 29.07.2006 the State Authority had directed for

maintenance of status-quo for Khatiyan of the lands which are the subject

matter of the dispute and a fresh Khewat has been published on

12.05.2008 in which the name of the respondents does not figure. The

respondents had filed Objection Case No. 87 of 2007 against the

Bandobasti which has been rejected and the appeal preferred by the

respondents had also been dismissed. In view of these developments the

appellants have prayed for status-quo.

On perusal of the records of the case, it is manifest that the instant

second appeal has been preferred against two concurrent finding of facts

recorded by the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court. The

plaintiffs' Declaratory Title Suit No. 94/281 of 1983-87 was decreed vide

judgment dated 08.09.1989 and the appeal preferred against the judgment was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.01.2004. From these two

concurrent finding of facts it is evident that prima facie case is not in

favour of the appellants. Further, any finding recorded by the Revenue

Court has not binding effect on the findings recorded by the civil court in

a title suit. The appellants have raised certain findings recorded by the

Revenue Court post litem much after disposal of the suit and the first

appeal which will have no bearing on the instant second appeal. The

appellants have miserably failed to make out a case of balance of

convenience in their favour or that they will suffer irreparable loss if the

order of status-quo is not allowed.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I.A. No. 3749 of 2021 is

rejected.

S. A. No. 149 of 2004

Put up this case under the appropriate heading.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT