Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2050
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Smt. Manju Rani Bhattacharjee wife of Late Anil Bhattacharjee - Petitioners
Versus
Mahadeb Dutta, son of Late Gobind Chandra Dutta – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 924 of 2024
Decided On : 18-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.:Mr. Abhijit Ray, Advocate.: Mrs. Sipra Bhattacharjee :Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate:Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate.:Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate., Mr. N.P. Choudhary, Advocate.
Petitioners failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable loss for injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, leading to dismissal of their appeal.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Petition for setting aside orders and dismissing appeals regarding property disputes, including issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss - The right, title, and interest in property were claimed in the context of historical trust deeds and buildings existing for decades. (Paras 2-3, 9-10)
(B) Interim Relief - Principles for granting injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC - The burden lies on the petitioner to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and demonstrate potential irreparable loss, which was not met in this case. (Paras 9, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the dismissal of their original suit for declaration and cancellation of a sale deed based on historical property management and alleged ongoing construction activities contradicting their claim. (Paras 3-4)
Findings of Court:
The courts found the petitioners failed to demonstrate any right, title, and interest over the property, dismissing their claims and orders were upheld as legally sound. (Paras 12-13)
Issues: The court examined the legitimacy of the claims to property rights and whether interim relief should be granted to prevent changes to property before trial. (Paras 2, 9, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the parameters for granting an injunction must be met; thus, dismissed the appeal as the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims effectively, and the lower courts acted within their discretion. (Paras 9, 13)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to challenge earlier court orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the trust and property rights. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. argument for preventing property changes. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. nature of existing constructions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's determination of prima facie case. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. court dismisses petition, allows trial to proceed. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 and Mr. N.P. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 10 and 11.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 01.08.2024, passed in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2023, by the learned Principal District Judge, Jamtara, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the learned appellate court has upheld the order dated 19.09.2023, passed in Original Suit No. 57 of 2023. Prayer is also made for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2023, passed in M.C.A. No. 41 of 2023 [arising out of Original Suit No. 57 of 2023] by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.)-I, Jamtara.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Original Suit No. 57 of 2023 has been instituted for declaration of the right, title and interest and also for cancellation of the sale deed. He submits that the issue in the said suit is that one Atanu Nandan Tagore was the younger brother of the great Rabindra Nath Tagore. Atanu Nandan Tagore was married with Akshey Kumari Devi. Atanu Nandan Tagore though resident of proper Kolkata, but he has got properties in different places. The said Atanu Nandan Tagore died on 25.06.1914. Before his death Atanu Nandan Tagore has executed a Will which was presented for probate in the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata and the said case is registered as Probate Case No. 1046 of 1920. As per the terms and condition of the said Will, Smt. Sarla Sundari Devi and Ashutos Bandhopadhyay were the Executants of the will. The matter was subsequently compromised and the Executants were Ordered by the Hon'ble High Court to hand over the entire estate of Late Atanu Nandan Tagore in favour of his widow Akshey Kumari Devi. He further submits that it was the desire of Late Atanu Nandan Tagore that some Temple be constructed in the name of his grandfather at Bishwanath Kashi Dham and a "Shivalinga" may be installed and a Temple may be created in the name of Sarda Sundari Devi, in view of that and in order to fulfill and complete the last wish of Atanu Nandan Tagore, his widow Smt. Akshey Kumari Devi has not adopted any one, rather to manage the properties as well as place of worships in different places has created a trust on 14th December, 1934 through a Register deed and the said Askhey Kumari Devi had appointed her two younger brothers Haradhan Gangopadhyay alias Haradhan Bhattacharjee and Tarapada Gangopadhyay alias Tarapada Bhattacharjee as the trustee to look after the asset of her deceased husband and also appointed her two brothers as Shebait of the Debattar properties of all places.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the Trust deed it was expressly mentioned that on her death, her two brothers will look after Shree Shree Shardey Sharshivalingajew and as Shebait her two brothers will look after the Debattar properties and the regular worship of the Shivalinga. It was also mentioned in the said instrument that on the death of the aforesaid two brothers of Askhey Kumari Devi, their legal heirs or descendants will continue as Shebait of the God / Goddess all through and the name of Late Askhey Kumari Devi has also been recorded in the Khatian. In these backgrounds, he submits that the suit was instituted, in which, a petition under Order- XXXIX Rules- 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed before the learned
