The main legal point established in the judgment is that successors of the annual patta holder have rights over the annual patta land and are entitled to possession. Additionally, the court emphasized the applicability of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act in granting mandatory injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation or to compel the performance of certain acts.

This is an appeal of the plaintiff whose suit for mandatory injunction was decreed by the trial Court and, on appeal by the defendants, dismissed by the first appellate Court.

2. The facts that have given rise to this appeal are as follows : The appellants filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Mangoldai for mandatory injunction against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that they had earlier filed a title suit against the defendants for recovery of khas possession of the suit land and for perpetual injunction which was numbered as Title Suit No. 12/70. The said suit was decreed in their favour on 14.8.70. The first appeal of the defendants as well as second appeal before the High Court were both rejected and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were affirmed. Thereafter, the decree was executed in Title Execution Case No. 13 of 1972 and khas possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiffs, who were minor at the relevant time, through their guardian. An order to that effect was passed on 30.11.72. The order of perpetual injunction was also duly served on the defendants and an order was also passed in the title execution case on 29.1.73 recording the same. The further case of the plaintiffs was that though they got possession of the suit land, the land remained fallow for sometime. They were minor at the relevant time and both their father and mother had died during the pendency of the title suit. Taking advantage of this situation, the defendants violated the perpetual injunction and on 15th Bhadra, 1380 entered the land, ploughed it and sowed mustard crops thereon. Situated thus, the suit, which has given rise to the present appeal, was filed praying for mandatory injunction against the defendants.

3. The defendants contested the suit. In their written statement they denied the execution of perpetual injunction and also its violation. Their contention was that they were in continuous posses­sion of the suit land for more than 25 years and the plaintiffs or their predecessors never possessed it nor got the delivery of possession in title execution case No. 13/72 as claimed in the plaint. The defendants also contended that the annual patta in the name of the plaintiffs had been cancelled and, as such, they had no right, title and interest in the suit land.

4. A number of issues were framed by the trial Court. Four witnesses including Md. Hasim Ali, who was the guardian of the minors at the relevant time, were examined on behalf of the plai­ntiffs. A number of documents were also exhibited in support of their claim. The defendants on the other hand, neither examined any witness nor adduced any documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence and the documents on record, found that the possession of the suit land had been delivered to the plaintiffs on 16.11.72 and the injunction notice had also been duly served on the defendants on 29.1.73. The trial Court, therefore, rejected the claim of the defendants that they were in continuous possession of the suit land for 25 years without inte­rruption. The Court observed that evidently the defendants were not in possession after 16.11.72 when the delivery of possession was given to the plaintiffs in execution of the decree in the earlier title suit" till they trespassed thereon in violation of the perpetual injunction. The trial Court also observed that the issue regarding possession having been already decided in the earlier suit between the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the defendants against the def­endants, they were estopped from raising the very same issue again, in the subsequent suit. The claim of continuous possession raised by the defendants was, therefore, held to be barred by res judicata.

5. The trial Court also rejected the contention of the defen­dants that the suit land being in their possession at the time of" filing the suit, the suit for mandatory injunction under section 39

Click Here to Read the rest of this document