Baijnath Singh vs Ravindra Kumar Sinha
2025 Latest Caselaw 5585 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Baijnath Singh vs Ravindra Kumar Sinha on 9 September, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                           2025:JHHC:27386




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       S. A. No. 14 of 2021

       Baijnath Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Late Kulbnash Naraina
       Singh, resident of Village Bara Nagpur, P.O.- Purnadih, P.S.-
       Tundi, District- Dhanbad.
                            ...      ...      Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
                             Versus
    1. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, son of Late Umesh Prasad Lal, resident of
       Kolhar Lal Tola, P.O.- Purnadih, P.S.- Tundi, District-Dhanbad.
    2. Smt. Meena Sinha, wife of Deepak Kumar Lal and daughter of
       Late Umesh Prasad Lal, resident of Gourangdih, P.O. and P.S.-
       Kashipur, District-Purulia (West Bengal)
    3. Smt. Mala Sinha, wife of Rabindra Pd. Sinha and daughter of Late
       Umesh Prasad Lal, resident of Karudih. P.O.- Sapaanalan, P.S.-
       Rajdhwar, District-Giridih.
    4. Smt. Manisha Sinha, wife of Mukesh Kumar Sinha and daughter of
       Late Umesh Prasad Lal, Resident of Shyam Bhawan, Court Road,
       P.O. and P.S.- Jamtara, District-Jamtara.
    5. Rupesh Kumar Baksi, Son of Bigenber Prasad Baksi and grandson
       of Late Umesh Prasad Lal, resident of Palgangb, P.O. & P.S-
       Pirtand, District-Dhanbad.
    6. Nilesh Kumar Baksi, son of Bigenber Prasad Baksi and grandson
       of Late Umesh Prasad Lal, resident of Palgangb, P.O. & P.S.
       Pirtand, District-Dhanbad.
    7. Devesh Kumar Baksi, son of Bigenber Prasad Baksi and grandson
       of Late Umesh Prasad Lal, resident of Palgangb, P.O.+P.S.
       Pirtand, District-Dhanbad.
    8. Murari Prasad Sinha, son of Late Akhileshwar Prasad Lal, resident
       of Kojhar Lala Tola, P.O.- Purnadih, P.S.- Tundi, District-
       Dhanbad.
    9. Jyotish Kumar Ambasta, Son of Late Akhileshwar Prasad Lal,
       resident of Kojhar Lala Tola, P.O.- Purnadih, P.S.- Tundi, District-
       Dhanbad.
                       ... ...          Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
                             ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

    For the Appellant        : Ms. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate
    For the Respondents      :
                             ---

12/09.09.2025

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.06.2020 (decree signed on 09.07.2020) passed by the learned

2025:JHHC:27386

Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2016 affirming the judgment dated 16.09.2016 (decree signed on 29.09.2016) in Title Suit No. 216 of 2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Dhanbad.

3. The learned trial court had decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC in view of the fact that there was neither any written statement from the side of the defendant nor any evidence was brought on record. The learned 1st appellate court had dismissed the appeal and consequently, the defendant is appellant before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the court has decided title of the plaintiffs in a case of seeking permanent mandatory injunction. Such an approach cannot be sustained in law.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and upon going through the impugned judgements this Court finds that the suit was filed seeking decree of permanent mandatory injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants and labourers etc from harvesting the paddy crops grown by them over schedule III land and thereby dispossessing them therefrom and/or any way disturbing their peaceful possession over the lands of C.S. Khata No. 37 of Mouza Bara Nagpur and for cost of the suit.

6. The plaintiffs claimed right, title and possession over the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed right, title, interest and possession over the suit property on their own rights based on registered deeds and also inheritance and also asserted that the order passed under section 87 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act was ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant and the order attained finality. Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act provides for institution and decision of suit filed before the revenue officer.

7. The learned trial court recorded that the defendants appeared on 19.10.2004 but did not file written statement so they were debarred from filing written statement and the suit proceeded under Order VIII

2025:JHHC:27386

Rule 10 of CPC vide order dated 28.05.2009. Thereafter, the defendant filed written statement but the same was not accepted vide order dated 18.01.2010.

8. Although, no issues were framed in absence of the written statement, but the learned court considered the point for consideration in paragraph 4 which are as under: -

(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in its present form and whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the present suit?

(ii) Whether the suit is barred under the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or under the law of limitation or any other law?

(iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties?

(iv)Whether the plaintiffs are the rightful owners in possession of the lands described in the schedule of the plaint on the basis of the alleged purchase by their predecessors in interest through registered sale deeds no.

53 dated 04.01.1945, 6181 dated 29.06.46 and 3140 dated 20.03.1952 and registered sale deed No. 3141 dated 20.03.1952 in favour of said Jaldhar Singh and whether plaintiffs are entitled for an order of injunction under Order XXXIX of the CPC against the defendant?

(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed in this suit or for other reliefs?

9. All the points were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court on the basis of the evidence placed on record. While deciding point for consideration No.(iv) the learned court has taken the numerous materials on record and found that the plaintiffs' unrebuttably proved that they were the rightful owners of the suit property and ultimately the suit was decreed granting the relief as prayed for.

10. The learned 1st appellate court has framed the following point for consideration: -

Whether the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit lands having possession over it and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction?

2025:JHHC:27386

11. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the materials and dismissed the appeal. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that claim of the plaintiffs was based on registered sale deeds and inheritance of remaining land of Sushila Devi and Ambika Devi which remained unchallenged and numerous documents were considered including exhibit-8 and 9 it would be relevant to quote paragraph 30 , 31 , 36 and 39 of the learned appellate court's judgment: -

"30. Ext-8 is the order dated 23.1.2004 passed by Revenue Officer in C.N.T. Case No.1193/1995. This order shows that the case was filed by the defendant/appellant for deleting the entry in the R.S. Khatiyan standing in the name of the plaintiffs and the Revenue Officer has specifically held against the claim of forged or fictitious sale deeds (reference Ext-1, Ext-9, Ext-14 & Ext-15) and that the defendant Baijnath Singh was not even able to satisfy the impugned plots nor could he be able to show as to how he was trying to connect his relation with the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the plaintiffs. The Revenue Officer has given specific finding that the rent for the entire plots shown in R.S. Khatiyan was also being paid by the plaintiffs/respondents who were in possession of the suit land with creation of Jamabandi in the name of the plaintiffs not being otherwise disputed by the defendant's side.

31. From the above discussion, this Court finds that the defendant/appellant at no stage has been able to dispute the correctness of the sale deeds and the acquisition of title of the plaintiffs based on the sale deeds and inheritance. Further specific claim of 81 decimals of land by the plaintiff no.1 Umesh Prasad Lal has not been disturbed or disputed by the defendant at any point of time and as already discussed, the land of Jaldhar Singh remained in possession of the plaintiff no.1 Umesh Prasad Singh for long uninterrupted either from Jaldhar Singh or from any body claiming to succeed his property.

36. On the basis of the above discussion of the plaintiffs' evidence particularly the documentary evidence, it has been established that the plaintiffs have acquired the impugned lands personally through several sale deeds referred to herein above while the plaintiff no.1 Umesh Prasad Lal has been since long in possession of the land of Jaldhar Singh (reference Ext-9) and at no point of time their vendees have raised any doubt regarding genuineness of the sale deeds or the possession of the pertinent lands. The claim of inheritance

2025:JHHC:27386

of the plaintiffs on the remaining land has also not been shaken by the defendant.

39. Having discussed as above and on perusal of the findings of the learned Trial Court. This Court is of the view that the plaintiffs/respondents have been able to prove their possession and title over the land in question which deserves to be protected from mischief at the hands of the defendant/appellant. The learned Trial Court has thus rightly allowed the plaintiffs' suit which does not warrant for any interference."

12. The law is well settled that 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 declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

13. However, in the present case where there is no cloud over the title of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are in possession by virtue of registered sale deeds and inheritance, the learned courts have rightly decided the issue regarding title and after being satisfied granted relief to the plaintiffs in the suit for injunction. The present case certainly falls outside the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.

14. This Court finds that in the present case the learned 1st appellate court while upholding the judgement of the learned trial court has given a clear finding that the defendant at no stage has been able to dispute the correctness of the sale deeds and acquisition of title of the plaintiffs based on sale deeds and inheritance and possession of the plaintiffs was also not in dispute.

15. The finding of the learned court reveals that no cloud could be raised by the defendant with regard to title of the plaintiffs and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit for injunction was not maintainable. The findings reveal that the defendant could not raise any dispute/cloud with regard to title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property.

16. Since there was no cloud in the title of the plaintiffs the learned courts rightly allowed the prayer for injunction after being satisfied

2025:JHHC:27386

about the title of the plaintiffs. This Court finds no error in the approach of the learned court either in law or on facts. No perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants with respect to appreciation of the materials placed on record.

17. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law is involved in this case.

18. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal which is hereby dismissed.

19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through "Fax/e-mail".

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 09.09.2025 Rakesh/-