SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioners have impugned the order dated 29.6.1990 (Annexure-12) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur by reasons of which, in spite of his order dated 1.2.1992 quashed by this Court, he has refused to restore possession of the petitioners over three rooms of holding No., 33, road No. 3 of Manifit Basti, Telco, Town, Jamshedpur and have prayed for consequential relief by way of directing the respondents concerned to restore the possession of the said house to the petitioners.

(2.) Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, some facts are necessary to be discussed which, in short are as follows: One Sardar Jagdish Singh had filed Title Partition Suit No. 26/90 against Smt. Harbans Kaur and others in the Court of Subordinate Judge No. 1, Jamshedpur claiming, inter alia, for partition of the suit properties detailed in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint. It is to be noted that this Jagdish Singh, husband of respondent No. 4, is none else but the son of Harbans Kaur the vendor of petitioner No. 1 of this writ application. It was admitted by the plaintiff, Jagdish Singh, that Schedule B property belonged the defendant No. 1, his brother and other defendants. Harbans Kaur and others contested the suit by urging, inter-alia that the property mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint exclusively belongs to defendant No. 1 (Harbans Kaur) and the same is Stridhan which stands in her name in the records of Tisco. Her case was that she had already sold the said property to Smt. Sarjeet Kaur (who is petitioner No. 1 herein) and put her in possession. By judgment and order dated 4.7.1992 the aforesaid suit was dismissed by the court below and there is nothing on record to show that against the said judgment and decree said plaintiff, Jagdish Singh moved in appeal.

(3.) In her counter-affidavit Manjeet Kaur (respondent No. 4) has denied the assertion of the petitioner that she ever came in possession of the said property rather asserted that she along with her family members is residing in the said premises for the last 15 years. She has stated that pursuant to order dated 1.2.1992 the Telco police dispossessed the petitioner and sealed the said premises. According to her, Title Partition Suit No. 26/90 was dismissed only on the ground that the suit property actually belonged to Mohan Singh who is her father-in-law.. Her further case is that respondents 3 and 4 were forcibly dispossessed by the petitioner in November, 1991 and as such, complaint was filed by the husband before the Telco police under Section 107, Cr.PC which was ultimately dropped by order dated 28.2.1992.