AMIT ROY Vs. ANAND SAH @ ANAND SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pandey Neeraj Rai, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri Delip Jerath, counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents. The order impugned is dated 31st January, 2011 passed by Sub-Judge-IV, Saraikella-Kharsawan, passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, whereby application for interim injunction was dismissed in Title Suit No. 35 of 2010.

(2.) The dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 3.5 acres falling in plot nos. 35, 54, 55, 57 and 58 of Mouza-Krishnapur under khata no. 41 of the old survey settlement operation of 1964 under Thana No. 132, Ward No. 9 of Adityapur Notified Area, corresponding to plot nos. 901, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928 and 929 under Khata No. 70 of survey settlement of 1981-82. The land in question originally belonged to one Chhotu Sao, son of Situ Saw. Chhotu Sao died leaving behind his two sons Mukund Sao and Haradhan Sao @ Muchi Ram Sao, who also died leaving behind his son Anand Sao (Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1). During their lifetime late Mukund Sao and late Haradhan Sao sold 1.22 acres of plot no. 53, 0.32 acres of plot no. 55 and 0.7 acres of plot no. 58, total area being 1.61 acres by a registered sale deed executed on 20.2.1976 to Rajendra Mahato son of Jairam Mahto @ Jainath Mahato of Asangitola, Circle-Gamharia, P.S.-Adityapur for cash consideration. By another sale deed executed on the same date the said vendors sold 1.89 acres in plot nos. 54 and 57 to the same purchaser. Pursuant to the aforesaid transactions said Rajendra Mahato, the purchaser in the aforesaid two sale deeds no. 3918 and 3919, was put into actual physical possession of the property on 20.2.1976 itself. The said sale deeds, however, were impounded at a later date by the Deputy Collector under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 on account of being defective due to deficit in stamp duty. On removal of the defect those deeds were registered on 19.9.1977 before the Sub-Registrar, Saraikella. Heirs and successors of late Rajendra Mahato, who remained alive, namely, Gandhi Mahato, Mantu Mahato, Smt. Chutan Mahato and Bimal Mahato, who are proforma respondents/defendants (nos. 2 to 5), sold the said property to the appellant/plaintiff no. 2 Company, acting through its Director-the appellant/plaintiff no. 1, by a registered sale deed no. 2074 dated 7.5.2007 for cash consideration. Accordingly, the appellants have come into actual physical possession of the suit property since then. The instant land sold to the appellants is a subject matter of dispute in Title Suit No. 35 of 2010.

(3.) Learned counsel has brought to my notice that writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 4213 of 2009) was contested between the two parties challenging the order in Mutation Case by preferring W.P. (C) No. 4213 of 2009. During the continuation of the writ petition arising out of mutation case the respondents sold portion of land to a builder, namely, Priyadarshini Homes, the appellants preferred I.A. No. 1839 of 2010 and I.A. No. 2066 of 2010 in the writ petition seeking restraint orders against respondent no. 1, his men and agent from changing typography of the land and also from alienating the land in question. This Court passed an order on 15.7.2010 relegating the matter for adjudication by the Civil Court. The order in the writ petition is reproduced in paragraph 20 of the instant appeal. Sri Pandey Neeraj Rai has laid stress that the interim order passed in the writ petition on 26.5.2010 was allowed to continue for a period of four weeks to enable the appellants to file a civil suit and also prefer an injunction application with clear caution that the order passed by the Revenue authority in mutation case in the writ petition will not prejudice the respective cases of the parties on merits or in the matter of injunction, if prayed. Impugned order passed in the injunction application is annexed alongwith the memo of appeal.