KARTIK LALL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Kartik Lall and his sons under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with a prayer to issue an order and directions, restraining the opposite party from interfering with their possession. The State of Bihar, the District Magistrate of Monghyr and the Sub -divisional Officer of Khagaria are opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. Opposite party Nos. 4 to 15 are some Mohammedans.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be related briefly. There was a dispute between the petitioners on one side and some Mahomedans including opposite party Nos. 4 to 15, on the other relating to 3 kathas of land appertaining to plot No. 2025 under khata No. 153 in Mahalla Bishwanathganj. Ward No. 4, of the Notified Area Committee at Khagaria Petitioner No 1, as karta of his family, instituted Title Suit No. 34 of 1955 in the Munsif. 1st Court, Monghyr, for declaration of title to the disputed land and for issue of a permanent injunction, restraining members of the public in general and opposite party Nos. 4 to 15 in particular from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over that land. The suit was decreed by the Munsif on the 21 January, 1957. Title Appeal No. 23 of 1957 against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif was dismissed by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge of Monghyr on the 30th June, 1959.

(3.) I think that it must be well known to all officers occupying positions like that of a District Magistrate or a Sub -divisional Magistrate that and orders passed by the Civil Court must be respected. If anyone does any act which tends to interfere with the performance of the decree and order of a Civil Court, the executive authorities must take necessary action in order to prevent the person from doing the act. In the present case, the situation is very simple. If, as stated by the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 has obtained a decree from the Munsif, which has been affirmed up to this Court, and a permanent injunction has been issued under that decree to the public in general and to opposite party nos 4 to 15 in particular, restraining them from interfering with the petitioners' possession, the executive authorities should take all suitable and legal action to prevent people from disobeying the decree and from acting against it.