DAULAT SAHU Vs. SAHADEV MEHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Sonepur in M.J.C.No. 22 of 2001 arising out of an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 as well as under , Order 40, Rule 1, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were restrained from entering into the suit land till disposal of the suit.

(2.) THE factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows: Originally the suit property appertaining to 4th.Settlement Khata Nos. 55 and 46 of mouza Regudipali belonged to one Sitanshu Sekhara Singhdeo who was in possession of the same till he transferred the property in favour of Rameswar Lal Singhdeo and Satarupa Devi by means of sale deed and gift deed respectively. Thereafter Rameswarlal Singhdeo and Satarupa Devi possessed the suit land in their own right by virtue of the deed of conveyance/deed of gift. Rameswarlal Singhdeo and Satarupa appointed Daulat Sahu, present respondent No. 1 as their Power -of -Attorney holder for the purpose of cultivating, managing, supervising and disposing of the suit property. By virtue of the said Power -of -Attorney, respondent No. 1 had claimed to be in possession of the suit property. Subsequent o the execution of Power -of -Attorney, it is claimed that responde is 1 to 4 purchased Schedule -A land from the said owners and as such they have claimed exclusive right over the said property. The said original owners transferred Schedule -B properties in favour of resoondent No. 3 and respondent Nos.5 and 16, by executing differant deed of conveyance. After execution of such sale deeds, the vendee -respendents have claimed to have been in possession of the same. In t a 5th Settlement, the names of their vendors, namely Rameswanal Singhdeo and Satarupa Devi were recorded separately. In the meantime, the names of the purchasers have already been mutated in respect of 'B' Schedule lands and they have been paying rent in token of their possession. Since the appellants created disturbances over their peaceful possession, therefore, there was a proceeding initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C. in which the learned Executive Magistrate by invoking the power under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. on ground of emergency attached to disputed lands. The appellants had, however, admitted that the lands belonged to Sitanshu Sekhar Singhdeo, but claimed that he was never in possession of the same and, on the other hand, the appellants are in continuous possession. It has been further stated that those lands were treated as Bhogra lands and the same vested in Government after abolition of the estate. Therefore, after vesting operation they have acquired right of occupancy in respect of the suit land and have been in possession till the land was attached by the Executive Magistrate, the respondents have filed the civil suit for declaration of their right in which they prayed for temporary injunction or alternatively for appointment of receiver, but the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on considering the case of both the parties from every angle deemed it appropriate to injunct the appellants from interfering with the possession of the respondents. Therefore, being aggrieved by and affected with the order passed by the court below, they have preferred this appeal.

(3.) MR .Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff -respondents while supporting the order of the court below has submitted that the respondents are the purchasers from the admitted owners and have been in possession. The learned Executive Magistrate, therefore, by invoking his emergency power attached the lands and referred the matter to the civil court. Be that as it may, the order of the court below cannot be found fault with, in as much as, it has protected the interest of the original owners even before the conclusion of the suit. In that view of the matter,since the appeal has no merits, it should be dismissed in limine.