GRAFTEK PVT LIMITED Vs. LORD LINGARAJ MAHAPRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants against an order passed by the trial Court allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent for injunction and restraining the present appellants from changing the nature and character of the disputed land and from doing any kind of alienation in respect of the suit land till disposal of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent has filed Title Suit No. 235 of 1995 for declaration that defendants 1 to 4 or their vendor had not acquired any right of occupancy or any other right in respect of the disputed land. It is alleged that plaintiff is the owner in respect of the disputed land. By Resolution dated 10-3-1937 and 11-3-1937, it had been decided to lease out the disputed land in favour of Dr. Ramendu Ray subject to certain conditions and subject to depositing Rs. 250/-. Though the said Ramendu Ray deposited Rs. 250/-, but the other conditions were not fulfilled and plaintiff continued in possession. On 24-9-1941, the Manager of the plaintiff wrote a letter to Dr. Ramendu Ray to comply with other conditions, but Ramendu Ray did not comply the same, but possessed the disputed land. When the plaintiff found out that Ramendu Ray's widow Bibhabati Ray was in wrongful possession of the disputed land, O. J. Case No. 66 of 1970 was filed under Section 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Thereafter the disputed land vested in the State Government and was settled with the plaintiff in a proceeding under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The matter came up to High Court in O.J.C. No. 166 of 1984 which was allowed in favour of the present appellants. The plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 5253 of 1995 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal by judgment dated 2-5-1995 directed the plaintiff to file a suit in the Civil Court. Thereafter the suit in question was filed before the Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit, a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, was filed seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the disputed property and from raising any construction on the disputed land.

(3.) The defendants in their objection raised several contentions against maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, principles of estoppel and res judicata and made averments indicating that the defendants had acquired indefeasible right over the disputed property.