Jharkhand High Court
Punil Singh vs Narayan Mahato @ Narayan Mahto S/O Late ... on 28 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:12664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 256 of 2022
----
1. Punil Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o Late Birendra Singh,
Resident of Village- Nagrikala, P.O. & P.S. Tetulmari, Distt. Dhanbad
(Jharkhand). .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1. Narayan Mahato @ Narayan Mahto S/o Late Ram Chandra Mahto,
Resident of Village-Nagrikala, P.O. & P.S.- Tetulmari, Distt. Dhanbad
(Jharkhand).
2. 2(a) Sonapati Devi, aged about 62 years, W/o Late Yogendra
Prasad Singh.
2(b) Rajiv Ranjan Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Yogendra
Prasad Singh.
2(c) Swaraj Singh @ Monu Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o Late
Yogendra Prasad Singh.
All Resident of Village- Nagrikala, P.O. & P.S. Tetulmari, District-
Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
All are legal heirs of deceased O.P. No.2.
3. Gautam Singh S/o Late Birendra Singh.
4. Arvind Singh S/o Late Gajendra Singh @ Gagendra Singh, Resident
Nos.2, 3, & 4 are residents of Village- Nagrikala, P.O. & P.s. Tetulmari,
Distt. Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
.... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the O.Ps :- Mr. R.C. Sahu, Advocate
----
09/28.04.2025 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the
opposite parties.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
2025:JHHC:12664
Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 14.03.2022
passed by learned District Judge-III, Dhanbad in Civil Misc. Appeal
No.30 of 2020 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to
affirm the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Sr. Div.)-III, in Misc. Civil Application No.138 of 2020 (arising out of
Original Suit No.180 of 2013 and dismissed the Civil Misc. Appeal
No.30 of 2020.
3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are plaintiffs in
the Original Suit No.180 of 2013 and the suit was instituted with
regard to 2.36 acres, C.S. Plot No.540, Khata No.06, Mauza-
Tetulmari, Thana- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad along with other
lands originally belongs to and was recorded in the C.S. records in
the names of Nathu Mahto and others. He further submits that
Nathu Mahto was the Grandfather of the defendant-respondent
No.1- Narayan Mahto and had half share in the property and the
lands were held and possessed jointly and Nathu Mahto died leaving
behind his son Ram Chandra Mahto and widow Sugia Mahtain. He
further submits that Ram Chandra Mahto and Sugia Mahtain felt
inconvenient to possess the land with the co-sharers and as such
they filed Title (Partition) Suit 18/1954 in the Court of learned
Subordinate Judge-1st, Dhanbad for partition and to make separate
allotment chart which was decreed on 29.04.1955 and half share
was declared in their favour. He submits that later on, Sugia
2025:JHHC:12664
Mahtain died and her interest devolved upon her son Ram Chandra
Mahto and later on, Ram Chandra Mahto also died leaving behind
him his widow Mundri Mahtain and son Narayan Mahto- Defendant-
respondent No.1 who filed an Execution Case No.83 of 1957 to
effectuate the decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.18 of 1954
and the possession was delivered to them upon the land which was
allotted to them in the final decree including the land-in-question.
4. He further submits that Mundri Mahtain was exercising all
acts of natural guardian of his minor son Narayan Mahato and sold
12.50 acres of land including the suit land of herself and her minor
son through Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 to one Bamdeo
Singh (father of plaintiffs) and put him in peaceful possession and
after coming in peaceful possession, he got mutated the land in the
Government Revenue Records and paid rent under Thoka No.216 of
Mouza Tetulmari. Bamdeo Singh died leaving behind his three sons
namely, Yogendra Singh, Birendra Singh and Gajendra Singh (who
are the original plaintiffs) who inherited the interest. During the
pendency of the suit, Birendra Singh died leaving behind his two
sons and they have been substituted in his place. Thereafter, the
original plaintiffs sold portions of 2.34 acres land to various persons,
out of which the defendant-respondent No.1 (who is the petitioner)
purchased 64 decimals vide Sale Deed No.2218 dated 25.02.1986
and received its peaceful possession. He submits that the
defendant-respondent No.1 accepted the rights, title, interest of 64
2025:JHHC:12664
decimals, but later on in year 2013, the defendant-respondent No.1
started to claim the land too described in Schedule-B (5 decimals, a
portion of Schedule-A land within C.S. Plot No.540, Khata No.06) on
the contention that the said Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 is
a void deed. He submits that in view of this background, a petition
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 has been preferred before the learned
trial Court which has been rejected. Aggrieved with that the
petitioner herein moved before the learned Court in Civil Misc.
Appeal No.30 of 2020 under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. which
has been rejected by the learned Court.
5. He submits at the learned First Appellate Court initially
directed the status quo to be maintained, however, later on, at the
time of final hearing has been pleased to dismiss the appeal only on
the ground that permission under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur
Tenancy Act has not been taken.
6. He further submits that this registration was made in the
year 1959. However, the Kurmi Caste was declared as backward in
the year 1962 vide Notification No.A/T3043/61-5423-R dated
23.06.1962. He submits that the retrospective application of the
said notification cannot be subject matter of rejection of the petition
for injunction. He submits that opposite parties have already
constructed the first floor in the part of the portion of the land and
the construction on the first floor is going on. He then submits that
in view of that this petition may kindly be allowed and injunction
2025:JHHC:12664
may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.
7. Mr. Ramchandra Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the
opposite parties opposes the prayer and submits that in the plaint in
paragraph No.21, the plot number is said to be 594 & 595 and
where in the Schedule, the Plot No. is disclosed as 531 & 532. He
further submits that the petitioners herein have purchased this plot
in question vide Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 and
thereafter, he has transferred part of land in one Mala Devi vide
Sale Deed No. 16878. He submits that the Narayan Mahto were
disturbing the possession of the Mala Devi in view of that she has
instituted the Original Suit No.67 of 2005 as well as for permanent
injunction which has been decided vide judgment dated 12th
September, 2011 and the learned Court considering the provision
made under Section 46 has also found that the initial Sale Deed
No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 itself was not correct and it was null and
void and in view of that the subsequent transfer made to Mala Devi
vide its Sale Deed No. 16878 has also been declared as null and
void. He submits against the said Title Appeal No.79 of 2011 has
also been preferred which has been rejected. He submits that even
the permanent injunction prayer was the main issue in his suit and
the appeal. He further submits that some of the lands have been
transferred by the subsequent Sale-Deed by the petitioners herein.
He then submits that L.A. Case No.68/92, Bam Deo Singh, who is
the grandfather of the petitioner has already relinquished the
2025:JHHC:12664
interest in favour of Narayan Mahto and to buttress his argument he
refers to compromise petition filed in L.A. Reference Case No. 68/92
contained at Page No.103 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the opposite parties. He further submits in view of that the both
the Courts rightly passed the orders. As the prima-facie case,
balance of convenience and irreparable loss has not been proved by
the petitioner herein.
8. He further submits that the construction was already started
prior to the institution of this case. He relied in case of "Shiv Dayal
Prasad Vs. Akhilesh Prasad and others", reported in 2011 3
JLJR 247. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may
kindly be rejected.
9. In view of the above submission learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the impugned judgment as well
as the documents brought on the record.
10. In the plaint of Title Suit No.180 of 2013 in the Schedule
the Plot No. is disclosed 531 & 532 wherein the paragraph No.21,
the plot No. is disclosed as 594 & 595. It has been pointed that the
correct plot number is of the land in question is 594 and 595 where
in the Schedule the plot no. is said to be 531 and 532. Thus, the
injunction sought on the Plot No.531 & 532 and no amendment
petition has been filed by the petitioner.
11. Thus, admittedly, the plot No.531 & 532 is said to be not
correct plot number. The petitioner herein purchased the plot in
2025:JHHC:12664
question vide Sale- Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 and thereafter,
he has transferred the part of the suit land to one Mala Devi and
the Narayan Mahato and others started disturbance and possession
of Mala Devi and she has instituted the Suit being No. 67/05 and
the learned Court has found that on the basis of the Schedule
No.9150 dated 20.05.1959, the said transfer has been made to the
Mala Devi vide Sale Deed No. 16878 dated 12.06.1972 and while
deciding the same, the learned Court has found that in the light of
the C.N.T., the Sale-Deed No.9150 in favour of the petitioner is
already void and in view of that the transfer made by the petitioner
herein to Mala Devi is said to be not correct and accordingly, the
suit was dismissed which was challenged before the learned First
Appellate Court in Title 79/2011 and the learned First Appellate
Court has also dismissed the said Title Appeal on 24th March, 2018.
It has been pointed out that the construction in question was
started earlier to the institution of the suit.
12. The document on the record with regard to the compromise
is also contained at Page No.103 of the counter-affidavit relating to
L.A. Reference Case No. 68 of 1992, wherein it is clearly stated that
Bamdeo Singh has relinquished title interest in favour of Narayan
Mahato son of Late Ram Chandra Mahato and four daughters of
Ram chandra Mahato.
13. The suit was instituted under Section 87 of the C.N.T. by
the defendant-respondent herein was also allowed in favour of
2025:JHHC:12664
opposite parties herein and it has further been pointed out that in
the register-II, the correction has been made in favour defendant.
Thus, it is an admitted fact that the dispute is there with regard to
possession itself and the petitioner has not been able to show about
his possession and right, title and interest, the only ground is taken
that 1962 Notification has come later on.
14. It is well settled that an interim mandatory injunction is not
a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in
circumstances which are clear and the prima-facie material clearly
justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the
parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that
the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory
injunction. Further, the prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to
grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-
interference by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the
party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to
the party except to grant injunction and he needs protection from
the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Further,
mere possessory right does not entitle a plaintiff to obtain the
temporary injunction against a true owner, the ownership is not
established so far the property in question is concerned of the
petitioner/plaintiff. Where the property is on mutated in favour of
the opposite party/defendants. A title is not proved, temporary
injunction could not be granted on the basis of possession only.
2025:JHHC:12664
Further no injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the
property and in the case in hand, a prayer is made for declaration of
right, title, interest and handover the possession.
15. In view of the above facts, this Court finds that the learned
Court has rightly passed the order. No case of interference is made
out, as such this petition is dismissed.
16. It is made clear that so far the pending suit is concerned
that will be decided in accordance with law without prejudice to this
order, as this order has been passed only considering the
parameters of injunction.
17. Pending petition, if any, is also dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
S.Das/
A.F.R.
