Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Pat) 372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JYOTI SARAN, J
Brij Nandan Mahto, son of late Lala Mahto, resident of village Ranisarai (Nepura), P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna - Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Smt.Ranjoo Devi, wife of Shri Balram Singh, resident of village Mohamadpur, Ranisarai, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna
2. Smt. Malti Devi, wife of Shri Gopal Singh, resident of village Ranisarai, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna.
3. Parsuram Singh, son of Shri Chandrika Prasad Singh, resident of village Mahmodpur, P.S and P.O. Bakhtiarpur District Patna
4. Shri Shashi Pandey, son of Late Sidheshwar Pandey,
5. (a) Sarita Devi, wife of late Rajni Kant Pandey (b) Gajendra Pandey (c) Vijendra Pandey (d) Madhu Pandey (e) Babloo Pandey All sons of late Rajni Kant Pandey (f) Madhuwanti Kumari d/o- late Rajni Kant Pandey
6. Shri Jitendra Pandey, son of late Satyadeo Pandey,
7. Shri Uday Shankar Pandey
8. (a) Uma Devi wife of late Rama Shankar Pandey (b) Seema Kumari daughter of late Rama Shankar Pandey (c) Digvijay Pandey son of late Rama Shankar Pandey – Opposite Parties
Civil Revision No.2200 of 2001
Decided on: 21-03-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Sr.Adv. Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Sukumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh-1, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Adv.

The main legal point established is that under Order 7 Rule 11, the trial Court's role is to assess the suit's maintainability, not to delve into the merits of the claims. Additionally, Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 does not bar suits raising purely civil issues of title and possession.

Headnote:
Order 7 Rule 11 - Maintainability of Suit - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961, Section 43 - Code of Civil Procedure - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and possession over a land, which the defendant-petitioner claimed to have acquired through preemption proceedings. The defendant-petitioner objected to the maintainability of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, citing Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit raised issues requiring adjudication and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. It noted that the statutory authorities' orders in the preemption proceedings did not conclusively settle the issues of title and possession, which are best adjudicated by a Civil Court.
Issues: The key issues were whether the plaintiffs could maintain a title suit despite losing in the preemption proceedings and whether the trial Court's opinion on the suit's maintainability was legally sound.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the trial Court's role under Order 7 Rule 11 is to determine whether the suit can proceed, not to delve into the merits of the claims. It highlighted that the suit raised purely civil issues of title and possession, which were not barred by Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Final Decision: The court upheld the trial Court's opinion on the suit's maintainability and directed the trial Court to expedite the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 29.9.2001 passed by learned Munsif, Barh in Title Suit No. 37 of 2000 whereby the objection raised by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) has been disposed of observing inter alia that the objection as to the maintainability of the suit in context with the cause of action being connected with the merits of the claim shall be tried along with other issues at the stage of final hearing and disposal of the suit.

2. The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 seeking inter alia a declaration of title and possession over the suit land described in Schedule 1 of the plaint as also for a declaration that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are the petitioner before this Court, have acquired no title or possession and cannot interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land described in Schedule 1.

3. The relief prayed in the suit together with schedule property is as follows:-

“19. That the plaintiffs pray for the following reliefs:-

(A) That on adjudication of the facts stated above, it be declared by the decree of the Court that the plaintiffs have absolute title and possession over the suit land described in Schedule 1 of the plaint and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have acquired no title or possession in the suit land or defendant nos. 1 and 2 have no right to interfere in absolute title and peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the lands described in Schedule 1 of the plaint (B) the deed of sale executed by D.C.L.R. Barh dated 12.7.1991 in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2

(B) That it be declare that the illegal, invalid, void, without jurisdiction obtained by the defendant no.1 and 2 practicing fraud and misrepresentation which does not effect to the title and possession of the plaintiff in suit land.

(D) The defendants be restrained by order of temporary injunction from interfering in title and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land mentioned in Schedule-1 of the plaint, till disposal of this suit.

(E) That the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants.

SCHEDULE-I

Description of the suit land over which the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 have absolute title and are continuing in possession as owner:-

Mauza Khata No. Tauzi No. Plot No. Area

Rani Sarai 52 8265 195 0.64

Boundary:--

Naipura North: Harihar Mahto and

P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur Suri Das

Thana No. 136 South-Ram Jivan Yadav

Distt.- Patna and Ganuri Yadav,

East-Siwana Karnauti Dagar,

West-Parsuram Singh

H/o Late Mamta Devi

SCHEDULE-II

Description of land purchased by plaintiff No.1 under sale-deed dated 18.05.1990 executed by Sidheshwar Pandey.

Mauza Khata No. Tauzi No. Plot No. Area

Rani Sarai 52 8265 195 0.32

Boundary:-

Naipura North: Harihar Mahto and

P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur Suri Das

Thana No. 136 South-Ram Jivan Yadav

Distt.-Patna and Ganuri Yadav,

East-Siwana Kamauti Dagar,

West-Parsuram Singh

Plot No. 169 H/o-Late

Mamta Devi Part of

plot no. 195 of Smt.

Mamta Devi

SCHEDULE-2A

Description of the lands owned and possessed by plaintiff No.2 on basis of registered deed of sale dated 18.5.1990 executed by Sidheshwar Pandey in her favour:

Mauza Khata No. Tauzi No. Plot No. Area

Rani Sarai 52 8265 195 0.32

Boundary:-

Naipura North: Harihar Mahto and

P.S. Bakhtiyarpur Suri Das

Thana No. 136 South-Ram Jivan Yadav

Distt.-Patna and Ganauri Yadav,

East-Siwana Kamauti Dagar,

West-Parsuram Singh,

H/o Late Mamta Devi”

4. An objection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2-petitioner questioning the maintainability of the suit inter alia in view of the provisions underlying Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document