SMT RAJ RAMI DEVI Vs. SHAM MANOHAR MISSIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule must be made absolute. It is directed against the issue of a temporary injunction pending the disposal of a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from "dispossessing the plaintiffs from their legitimate interests" in a certain mokarrari tenure and from taking out the dakhal dehani in the certificate case in which that mokarrari tenure was brought to sale and purchased by the original defendant 1. The certificate sale, I am told, took place on 15 March 1937, the mokarrari which carries an annual rent of over Rs. 2000 being sold for Rs. 5300. On 11 May 1937, there was an application under Section 20, Public Demands Recovery Act, by some of the sons of some of the judgment-debtors that some minors had not been properly impleaded in those certificate proceedings. This application ended in a compromise, so I am informed, according to which the sale was to be set aside if the judgment-debtors paid a certain sum by 31 August 1937, but was other, wise to stand and no objection was to be made by the judgment-debtors. The money was not paid as promised, and on 1 September 1937, the sale was confirmed. On 3 September, the auction purchaser applied for the delivery of the sale certificate to him and for dakhal dehani. Next day the sale certificate was signed and dakhal dehani issued.

(2.) On the same date a letter was received, later on, from the Munsif of the Second Court of Gaya saying that a temporary injunction had issued against defendant 1 in respect of his taking possession of the interest of the plaintiffs in the suit. The certificate officer there, upon informed the Munsif of the Second Court of Gaya that dakhal dehani had already issued and that the Sub-Divisional Officer of Jehanabad, in whose jurisdiction the mokarrari lay, was being written to.

(3.) The case of the petitioner before me is that possession was actually delivered on 5 September, under this dakhal dehani, and the Sub-Divisional Officer of Jehanabad replied on 8 September that dakhal dehani had already been effected. Two days after this the original defendant 1 sold this property to the present defendant 1, the petitioner before me. The suit in which the temporary injunction had been issued was a suit, as I have already stated, for the issue of a permanent injunction, and it, was brought by some members of the family of the certificate debtors on the footing that the minor plaintiffs had been impleaded in the certificate proceedings as majors, so that the certificate sale could not affect their shares, and that the other plaintiffs being younger sons were not represented in the certificate proceedings at all, so that their shares were also not affected by those proceedings. The learned Munsif held on a perusal of the pleadings that there was a substantial question to be decided in the case.