ANN. CHANDIRAMANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants being aggrieved by the order dtd. 30/4/2024 passed by the appellate Court whereby their application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuance of mandatory injunction has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs/appellants claim themselves to be the owners of the disputed property the same having been purchased by their predecessors by registered sale deed dtd. 14/11/1892. On 14/7/1995 defendant No.1 issued notices to the plaintiffs under Sec. 12 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorizd Occupants) Act, 1971 seeking documents of title regarding the disputed property. The plaintiffs filed their reply to the notice. On 5/6/1995 defendant No.2 passed an order under Sec. 5-B(2) of the Act, 1971 informing the plaintiffs for stopping construction over the disputed property. Reply was submitted by the plaintiffs to the said notice on 9/6/2025. On 15/6/1995 defendant No.2 issued a notice to the plaintiffs under Sec. 4 of the Act, 1971. The plaintiffs then preferred W.P. No.846/1995 before this Court which was dismissed by order dtd. 10/7/1994 granting liberty to them to file a civil suit.

(3.) On 7/5/1997 the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the trial Court for declaration of their title over the disputed property, declaration that the notices issued by the defendants are null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the disputed property. By order dtd. 9/5/1997 status quo with respect to the disputed property was directed to be maintained by the trial Court. Written statement to the plaintiff's claim was filed by the defendants. Thereafter by order dtd. 1/8/2001 the trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Eventually by judgment and decree dtd. 20/12/2022 the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim but in paragraph No.39 it was held that though they have failed to prove their title but are in possession of the disputed property and are entitled to right of its occupation.