Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KHATIM REZA, J.
Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2022
(3.1.2024)
Ramesh Kumar Singh ... Appellant
vs.
Lalan Prasad Singh & Ors. ... Respondents
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 39 R 1 & 2–Injunction–main issues to be decided in the suit is whether the sale deed of 1983 is benami and whether the schedule B property is joint family property or not–however, the multi-storied building has already been completed and occupancy certificate issued by the authorities has already been obtained by the developer–it is also admitted case of the parties that some of the flats have been sold by the developer as well as well as owners and third party interest has already been created–further, respondent no. 15 is a registered company, and the interest of the respondent no. 15 is also involved in the suit property on the basis of registered development agreement under Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006 as Section 5(1) of the said Act provides that developer shall be absolute owner of his share and therefore interest developer is involved in the suit property–the said development agreement was executed much prior to filing of the present suit–it has been held by the Hon'ble S.C. that a person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the property exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction and the Court should not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one–grant or refusal at injunction has serious consequences depending upon the nature thereof and in dealing with such matters, the Court must have all endeavour to protect the interest of the parties–impugned order refusing the injunction not liable to any interference–however, respondent permitted to carry out constructions of the building or dealing with the same subject to the result of the suit–Trial Court directed to conclude the trial at the earliest–respondent defendants no. 1 and 2 (jointly) and respondent no. 15 (developer) directed to deposit Rs. 50 lakh as security before the Trial Court–M.A. dismissed. (Paras 20 to 23)
AIR 2012 SC 2448, AIR 2009 SC 2882, AIR 1993 SC 276, (2008)11 SCC 1–Referred.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-V, Civil Court, Danapur, Patna in Title Suit No. 300 of 2019, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The plaintiff-appellant filed injunction petition for restraining the respondent 1st set and 5th set from making construction or creating any third party interest over the land situated at Gola Road described in schedule-C, which is part of Schedule-B, of the plaint.
3. The plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 300 of 2019 in the Court of Sub-Judge 5th Danapur, Patna for declaring the registered gift deed dated 08.04.2015, 20.09.2019 and 12.08.2015 as described in Schedule-C as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and thereafter the same be treated as partable land being part of Schedule-C, and also for declaring the registered development agreement dated 29.04.2016 executed by defendant 1st set in favour of builder defendant 5th set as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff as described in schedule-H of the plaint and thereafter same be treated as partable land being part of Schedule-B of the plaint and also for directing the defendant 1st set to execute registered sale deeds for Schedule-D land in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of land of Schedule-E as agreed. Further relief sought is that half share of the plaintiff be declared in the land described in Schedule-A, B, F and G by way of preliminary decree and thereafter separate Takhta may be allotted to the plaintiff by the process of court, and defendant 1st set and 5th set be restrained by an order of injunction from creating third party interest or encumbering the properties and from changing the nature of the land and defendant 5th set be restrained from making any construction over the land of Schedule-H since it is part of land of Schedule-B.
4. The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in brief, is that plaintiff Ramesh Kumar Singh and defendant no. 1, namely, Lalan Prasad Singh are full brothers being sons of late Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh, who jointly constitute Hindu family under the Mitakhsar school of Hindu Law. The estate of late Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh is joint and there is no partition by metes and bounds between two sons of late Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh. It is contended that on 13.09.2012 by way of family arrangements, estate of late Babu Tej Narayan Singh (father of Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh and Indu Shekhar Prasad Singh) was partitioned amongst his three sons; one son, namley, Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh from first wife, and two sons, namely, Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh and Indu Shekhar Prasad Singh from second wife of Babu Tej Narayan Singh. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh died in the year 1993 whereas Indu Shekhar Prasad Singh died in the year 1962 and Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh died on 27.05.2016. The said partition by way of family arrangements was effected on 13.09.2012 among descendants of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh and Indu Shekhar Singh. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh had two sons, namely, Arun Kumar Singh and Binay Kumar Singh whereas Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh had two sons, namely, Lalan Prasad Singh and Ramesh Prasad Singh. Indu Shekhar had one son, namely, Ajit Kumar Singh. Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh along with his two sons has been allotted 35.44 acres land at mauza Manikpur. Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh was in service, who retired as Assistant Commissioner, State Excise in September, 1987. The said Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh, out of his income, acquired 3 kathas land through registered sale deed dated 26.02.1969 bearing Circle No. 247 of Plot No. 913-914. Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh during his lifetime, executed registered Will on 14.10.2015 in favour of Smt. Jaya Singh, wife of Ramesh Kumar Singh. The wife of Ramesh
The court emphasized the importance of clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions for the exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and highlighted the principle that possession ....
Court could not have come into finding that there was a balance of convenience in not granting an injunction.
A plaintiff with clear title and possession can seek an injunction against interference, even in the face of disputed title, provided they substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
(1) Interlocutory injunction—Appellate Court can interfere with order of trial court when it is found that discretion has been exercised by trial Court arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or wh....
Ownership established through title documentation is pivotal in determining rightful possession; injunctions are warranted when prima facie evidence supports legal entitlement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
