SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court Plaintiff has questioned the legality of the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st, Bokaro in Original Suit No.16 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ,,the Code) for restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the plaintiff, has been rejected.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant pleading of the plaintiff, which is necessary for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this appeal, in short, is that the property in dispute under Khewat No.2 corresponding to Khata No.566, Plot No.7018 was recorded under the name of the then landlord Shashi Bhushan Mishra and others in the last cadastral survey operation. The said landlord settled 4.17 acres of land of the said Khewat in the name of Rohini Kumar Chatterjee on 30th December, 1936 after receiving Salami and granted rent receipt. After vesting of Zamindari, the then D.C.L.R., Baghmara, Dhanbad by initiating a proceeding under Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act annulled the settlement made by the then landlord. On appeal, the then Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad upheld the order but on a civil writ bearing no.134 of 1980(R), filed by Rohini Kumar Chatterjee, the Honble Ranchi Bench of High Court set aside the order of D.C.L.R. as well as D.C., Dhanbad. The said Rohini Kumar Chatterjee became the absolute raiyat of the schedule land but prior to the above order of the Honble Court, the co -sharers of the Khewat holder/ex -landlord brought a Title Suit bearing no.226 of 1962 before Munsif 2nd court, Dhanbad in which the dispute between the parties was settled by way of compromise. Rohini Kumar Chatterjee in the said compromise got 3.67 decimals of land in Khata No.566, Plot No.7018 which is the land in dispute the details of which is given in Schedule - 'A' at the foot of the plaint. After mutation of his name, he constructed two asbestos rooms over the schedule land covering 870 sq. ft. and after his death his son Anjan Kumar Chatterjee became absolute owner. The said Anjan Kumar Chatterjee due to some family requirements requested this plaintiff to purchase the said land, who after scrutiny of the related documents and finding that the land was recorded as Gairabad Khata during last C.S. operation, requested his vendor to obtain permission from the Government to avoid future complication. After grant of necessary permission, the plaintiff purchased the land in dispute by sale deed dated 02.07.2015 on payment of valuable consideration and took the physical possession of the land, got his name mutated and paid rent to the State but when after few days he came back to the plot on 15.07.2015 for renovation of the rooms for opening his own business, the nearby shop keeper Umakant Dubey informed him that few months back some people came from civil court, Bokaro and got the land and house vacated from possession of one Sanjay Singh. The plaintiff on enquiry found the existence of one Execution Case No.01 of 2012 arising out of Eviction Suit No.32 of 2004 filed by the present defendant -respondent against one Sanjay Singh and that the defendant had purchased the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 13.07.1986 from Sushila Devi Khedia to whom Rohini Kumar Chatterjee had sold.

(3.) The further pleading is that the said sale deed was false and concocted one and was never acted upon and the present defendant in collusion with Sanjay Singh the defendant of eviction suit obtained a collusive decree and filed the Execution Case No.01 of 2012. The identity of the land as given in the schedule of the execution case was similar to the details as given in the plaint of the instant suit. Hence, the present suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over Schedule -'A' land and that the sale deed dated 13.01.1986 executed in favour of the defendant -respondent is void ab -initio, and for further declaration that the judgment and decree passed in Title Eviction Suit No.32 of 2004 is not binding on the plaintiff besides the relief of permanent injunction and in alternative for recovery of possession if the plaintiff is found dispossessed during pendency of suit by any means or order or by the defendants.