Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs Durga Charan Mondal on 7 August, 2025
2025:JHHC:22493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 97 of 1996 (P)
......
[Against the Judgment and decree dated 29.02.1996 passed by learned
District Judge, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No.07 of 1994]
......
1(b)(i) Pavitra Beva W/o Late Sudhir Mondal
1(b)(ii) Ramchandra Mandal S/o Late Sudhir Mondal
R/o Vill- Fudkipur, P.S.- Radhanagar, Dist. Sahibganj.
1(c) Kanhai Mondal S/o Late Ram Das Mondal
1(d) Santosh Mondal S/o Late Ram Das Mondal
1(e)(i) Maoti Bewa W/o Late Shiv Charan Mondal
1(e)(ii) Suraj Mondal S/o Late Shiv Charan Mondal
R/o Vill- Fudkipur, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, Dist. Sahibganj.
... Defendants/Appellants
Versus
1. Durga Charan Mondal, son of Late Chabilal Mondal
2. Kedernath Mondal, son of Bhagwati Mondal
both resident of Fudkipur, P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahebganj.
... Plaintiffs/Respondents
......
For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Rita Kumari, Advocate
Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Om Prakash, Advocate
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 16.07.2025 Pronounced on 07.08.2025
1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by
Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 1
2025:JHHC:22493
appellants as well as Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Ganesh
Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
2. This instant second appeal has been preferred being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree
dated 29.02.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Sahibganj
in Title Appeal No.07 of 1994 confirming the judgment and
decree dated 23.02.1994 passed by learned Sub-Judge,
Rajmahal in Title Suit No.43 of 1985
3. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated
18.02.1998 on following substantial question of law :-
"Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs-
respondents was maintainable in absence of
any prayer for declaring title?"
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the
respondents/plaintiffs had filed Title Suit No.43 of 1985
before the Court of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge, Senior
Division), Rajmahal for grant of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from taking the possession or
dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. Further prayer
of the plaintiffs is that order passed by the Residential
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 2
2025:JHHC:22493
Magistrate refusing to send the records after the records
called for by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 411 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and all orders thereafter as
void.
Initially, the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Sahibganj which was later on transferred
to the Court of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge, Senior
Division), Sahibganj and numbered as Title Suit No.43 of
1985. It is claimed by plaintiffs that they are owners of the
suit Schedule land. It is further alleged that mother of the
plaintiff Kedar Nath Mandal namely Savitri Devi acquired
the suit land in Court auction and got delivery of possession
of the same on 27.06.1940 from the Certificate Officer. The
defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the
suit land and merely on the basis of collusive mutation, the
defendants without any valid right and in suppression of
order passed by Dy. Commissioner are adamant to
dispossess the plaintiffs from the suits Schedule land.
Therefore, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was
initiated vide Miscellaneous Case No.258 of 1984. The
plaintiffs filed an application under Section 411 of the Cr.P.C.
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 3
2025:JHHC:22493
before the Sub-Divisional Officer who called for the records
from the Court of Residential Magistrate vide order dated
17.11.1984, which was not sent rather order was passed on
01.12.1984. The plaintiffs also filed a petition for time before
the Resident Magistrate to not to execute the order and
provide some time for filing revision before the Hon'ble High
Court but the petition was also rejected on 05.12.1984 and
case was fixed for ex-parte order on 10.12.1984. On that basis,
the defendants forcibly took possession of the suit land,
situated in Plot Nos.6, 7 and 844 measuring an area of 6
Bighas 1 Kathas 4 Dhurs.
5. The defendants appeared and contested the suit stating
inter alia that the suit is not maintainable as there is no cause
of action for the suit. The plaintiffs have only asked for relief
of injunction without getting declaration of their title. It is
further pleaded that the land in question belongs to
Sarbeshwar Mandal, father of the defendant. It is further
alleged that Chabi Lal Mandal (father of plaintiff No.1) and
Bhagwati Charan Mandal (father of plaintiff No.2) sold the
said area of land for themselves and other minor brother
including the defendant to One Jyoti Ghoshain through
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 4
2025:JHHC:22493
registered sale deed dated 29.03.1938 and the plaintiffs lost
their share and title over the suit property. The defendants
came to know about the said sale and purchased the suit
property from Jyoti Ghoshain for valuable consideration of
Rs.6,000/- through registered sale deed dated 13.07.1979 and
became absolute owner of the land in question. The plaintiffs
have no right, title and interest over the suit property, hence,
the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues
were settled by the learned Trial Court :-
(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of
action?
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are rightful owners of the suit
property?
(iv) Whether the order of the learned Residential
Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is a valid
order?
(v) Does mutation confer title?
(vi) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?
7. The learned Trial Court after considering the oral as
well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties
recorded findings that the plaintiffs have valid right, title and
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 5
2025:JHHC:22493
interest over the suit properties. The suit as framed is
maintainable and there is valid cause of action. Accordingly,
decreed the suit. The defendants filed an appeal No.07 of
1994 wherein also the learned Appellate Court after hearing
arguments of the parties proceeded to decide all the issues as
were settled by the learned Trial Court. The core issue
No.(iii); "Whether the plaintiffs are rightful owners of the suit
property?" was taken at first and on the basis of
reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence of plaintiffs
as well as the defendants arrived at definite conclusion as
under :-
"I find that the plaintiffs have right and title over the suit
property. It would be worth to mention that the defendant
has based his claim on Ext.A, the certified copy of sale
deed executed by Jyoti Ghoshain in favour of Ramdas
Mandal dated 29.03.1938 executed by Chabhilal Mandal,
Bhupati Charan Mandal, Ramdas Mandal, Nitai
Chandra Mandal minor in favour of Jyoti Ghoshain but
that deed was executed during the pendency of Certificate
case filed by Secretary of Estate for India against Chabilal
Mandal and others. As such, no importance can be
attached to Ext.A/1, sale deed executed by Jyoti Ghoshain
in favour of the defendant. Therefore, on the basis of
Ext.A and Ext.A/1, the defendants have got no right,
title, interest and possession over the suit land. Similarly,
Ext.B, certified copy of order dated 11.12.1984 under
Section 144 Cr.P.C. made absolute in favour of Durga
Charan Mandal and others and vacated against Ramdas
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 6
2025:JHHC:22493
Mandal. Ext.B/2, certified copy of order dated 12.11.1988
to show that injunction was vacated. Ext.D, plaint of
Title Suit No.09 of 1955 filed by Savitri Bala Dasi
against Ramdas Mandal for recovery of possession
stating that the defendant has dispossessed the plaintiffs
in the year 1946 but what was the result ultimately there
is no document to show."
Therefore, the issue No.(iii) was decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants and judgment and
decree passed by learned Trial Court was confirmed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the
concurrent findings of Court below has confined himself
towards the question as to whether the suit for permanent
injunction can be maintainable without claiming declaration
of title by the plaintiffs over the suit property. In this regard,
he has placed reliance upon reported judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. M.
Mallappa, AIR Online 2021 SC 698. In this case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court placing reliance upon reported judgment in
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and
Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2033, has laid down as under :-
"21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for
prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property,
is as under :
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 7
2025:JHHC:22493
(a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title
and he does not have possession, a suit for
declaration and possession, with or without a
consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where
the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a
cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for
possession with a consequential injunction.
Where there is merely an interference with the
plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of
dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an
injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned
only with possession, normally the issue of title
will not be directly and substantially in issue. The
prayer for injunction will be decided with
reference to the finding on possession. But in
cases where de jure possession has to be
established on the basis of title to the property, as
in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may
directly and substantially arise for consideration,
as without a finding thereon, it will not be
possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit
for injunction, unless there are necessary
pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title
(either specific, or implied as noticed in the case of
Annaimuthu Thevar vs. Alagammal, AIR 2005
SC 4004). Where the averments regarding title
are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue
relating to title, the court will not investigate or
examine or render a finding on a question of title,
in a suit for injunction. Even where there are
necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter
involves complicated questions of fact and law
relating to title, the court will relegate the parties
to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 8
2025:JHHC:22493
declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in
a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding
title, and appropriate issue relating to title on
which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved
is simple and straight-forward, the court may
decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a
suit for injunction. But such cases, are the
exception to the normal rule that question of title
will not be decided in suits for injunction. But
persons having clear title and possession suing for
injunction, should not be driven to the costlier
and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for
declaration, merely because some meddler
vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries
to encroach upon his property. The court should
use its discretion carefully to identify cases where
it will enquire into title and cases where it will
refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive
declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the
case."
9. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs has vehemently opposed the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of appellants and submitted that
there are specific pleadings in the plaint in respect of basis of
title and possession of the respondents which has been
controverted by the original defendant through purchase of
the same property from one Jyoti Ghoshain vide registered
sale deed dated 13.07.1979. Therefore, the learned Trial Court
as well as the first Appellate Court incidentally entered into
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 9
2025:JHHC:22493
deciding the issue of title of the plaintiffs by framing issue
No.(iii). Since the claim of defendant was based through
purchase by his vendor Jyoti Ghoshain vide sale deed dated
13.07.1979, but said Jyoti Ghoshain had purchased the
property of suit land during pendency of the certificate case
No.280 of 1937-38, hence, the purchase of suit property by
vendor of defendant in the year 1938 was null and void
conferring no right, title and interest to the vendor of the
defendant. The plaintiffs' basis for acquisition of the suit
property through purchase in auction sale in the year 1940
was found to be valid and genuine conferring title to the
plaintiffs. In this regard, the reported judgment relied upon
by the appellants' himself in T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy (supra)
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance upon
reported judgment in Anathula Sudhakar (supra) itself
favours the case of the respondents as discussed in para
No.21(d).
The learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate
Court has committed no error of law in decreeing the suit of
the plaintiffs/respondents and there is no legal substance in
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 10
2025:JHHC:22493
the question of law raised by the appellants and no merits in
this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.
10. I have gone through the record of the case along with
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned
Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court.
11. The simple question raised by learned counsel for the
appellants is that a suit purely seeking injunction without
claiming title and recovery of possession is not maintainable.
In this connection, the reported judgment in T.V.
Ramakrishna Reddy (supra) relied upon by the appellants
himself substantially uproots the very substantial question of
law as formulated at the instance of the appellants. The
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Anathula Sudhakar (supra) at sub para (d) of para 21 itself
justifies a suit for injunction without claiming title in some
exceptional circumstances. In the case in hand, there is no
dispute that the suit property was purchased through auction
purchase by the ancestor of the plaintiff on 27.06.1940
followed by delivery of possession. The same property was
transferred to the vendor of the defendant/appellant on
29.03.1938 during pendency of certificate case. Thereafter, the
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 11
2025:JHHC:22493
defendant has purchased the same property through
registered sale deed from the Jyoti Ghoshain on 13.07.1979
which was nothing but a waste paper conferring no right,
title, interest or possession to the defendant over the suit
property. It is also apparent from the record that the plaintiff
was being forcibly dispossessed by virtue of an order passed
in the proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. He was also not
provided sufficient time to prefer revision and the order was
made absolute against him. All these proceedings and the
nefarious deeds of the defendant were sufficient for giving
rise to a cause of action to file suit for injunction. It also
appears that the plaintiff has sufficient pleadings showing his
title over the suit property and the learned Trial Court after
receiving written statement of the defendants casting doubt
over the title of the plaintiff settled an issue regarding
ownership also and decided the title of the plaintiff. The
defendant/appellants have also taken the plea about the
maintainability of the suit of injunction simpliciter in absence
of declaration of title which has been rightly declined by the
learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court.
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 12
2025:JHHC:22493
12. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I do not
find any substance in the substantial question of law relied
upon by learned counsel for the appellants. There appear no
merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed.
13. Pending I.As., if any, also stand dismissed.
14. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 07/08/2025
Sachin / NAFR
S.A. No. 97 of 1996(P) Page | 13
