ABDUL HAMID Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 24.9.2011 passed by Learned Sub Judge I Ranchi, in connection with Title Suit No. 477 of 2011 whereby the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed and the prayer for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the appellants was rejected .e, in brief is that the plaintiff appellants filed a suit (Title Suit No. 477 of 2011) in the court of Sub Judge 1, Ranchi, making averments in the plaint that late Mubaraq Hussain, father of the plaintiffs was in employment of Ratu Maharaj and he was rendering his services. Maharaja Pratap Uday Nath Sahdeo on being pleased and satisfied with the services of Mubaraq Hussain, settled 1.40 acres of land under Revisional Survey Khata No. 141, Plot No.09 of village Bukru for agricultural purposes and granted hukumnama on 2.2.1936 and put him in possession. After settlement, rent was also realized from said Mubaraq Hussain who remained in possession over the land in question till his death occurred in the year 1996 and after that, the plaintiffs being legal heirs came in possession and the property devolved upon them. It is further contended that even assuming that initially, Mubaraq Hussain did not have the title over the property described in the schedule of the plaint, the plaintiffs acquired title over the same by way of adverse possession. It is further mentioned that in the recent survey operation, draft record of right was prepared in the name of State of Jharkhand. The plaintiffs then filed petition under section 89 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and the Survey Settlement Authority, Ranchi by his order dated 28.11.2009 passed in Survey revision No. 97 of 2007(Kanke) directed for correction in the record of rights.

(2.) THAT on 30.9.2011, some persons suddenly appeared on the scheduled land and wanted to occupy the same. On objection raised by the plaintiffs, they informed that they are employees of the State Bank of India. An Amin of Kanke Circle was also present and they wanted to fix pillar in the land, but the protest made by the plaintiffs did not allow them. Again, on 5.9.2011 Circle Officer, Kanke Circle, asked the plaintiff to vacate the land immediately, otherwise, they would be implicated in a criminal case. Since there was persisting threat, the plaintiffs sent notice to the defendants on 6.9.2011 under section 80 C.P.C. Apprehending dispossession from the suit property, the plaintiffs filed separate petition under section 80 (2) C.P.C. praying for leave to file suit without waiting for expiry of the period of sixty days of notice under section 80(1) C.P.C. and filed suit and petition for temporary injunction restraining the defendants or their representatives from coming over the suit property.

(3.) THAT after rejection of the said petition and being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24.9.2011, this misc. appeal has been filed.