Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Ananda Goudo and Others – Appellants
Versus
Satrughana Naik and Another – Respondents
SA No. 141 of 1987
Decided On : 28-03-2018
O.E.A. - Permanent Injunction - O.E.A. Act, Sec. 144 Cr.P.C., O.E.A. Case No. 32/76, O.E.A. Revision No. 70/83, O.J.C. No. 162/1985 - The court discussed the O.E.A. Act, Sec. 144 Cr.P.C., and the legal principles related to suits for prohibitory injunctions. The court emphasized the necessity of establishing title and possession for maintaining a suit for permanent injunction and referred to the apex court's decision in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy to support its findings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming that the O.E.A. Collector settled the land in their favor and they were in possession, while the defendants contested the jurisdiction of the civil court and their possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had no title and possession over the suit land, and therefore, could not maintain the suit for permanent injunction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs, who had lost their interest in the suit lands, could maintain a suit for injunction against an alleged trespasser.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of establishing title and possession for maintaining a suit for permanent injunction, citing the legal principles outlined in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The case involved an appeal against the judgment that dismissed a suit for permanent injunction based on the lack of established title and possession (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs claimed that the land was settled in their favor by the relevant authority and that they were in possession, but the defendants contested both the jurisdiction of the civil court and the plaintiffs' possession (!) .
The trial court initially found that the plaintiffs had no valid title or possession over the land, and thus, the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable (!) .
The main legal issue was whether a person who has lost their interest in the land, and whose claim has been rejected or set aside, can maintain a suit for injunction against a trespasser, especially when their estate has vested in the State (!) .
The court emphasized that, generally, a suit for injunction relies on the existence of a valid title and lawful possession. Without proof of title or possession, such a suit cannot succeed (!) (!) .
The court clarified that issues of title are usually not directly and substantially determined in suits for injunction unless the pleadings and facts involve straightforward and uncomplicated questions. In complex cases, parties should be directed to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title (!) (!) (!) .
In this case, the order of settlement by the relevant authority was later set aside by the appellate authority, and the plaintiffs' claim was found to lack valid title and possession (!) (!) .
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgments below were set aside, and the suit was dismissed with no order as to costs (!) .
The court reaffirmed that a person who has lost their estate or interest, especially after a legal order has been reversed, cannot maintain a suit for injunction based solely on possession or title that no longer exists (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or further assistance.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. RATH, J.
1. This is a defendant's appeal against confirming judgment.
2. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs was that the OEA Collector settled Ac. 2.87 cents of land appertaining to Khata Nos. 107 and 108 of Village Chasamahuli in their favour in O.E.A. Case No. 32/76. On 02.08.1982, the OEA Collector issued rent schedule in their favour and directed them to pay salami and arrear rent with effect from 01.10.65. They paid salami and arrear rent on 07.10.82. They are in possession of the suit land. In the year 1982, the defendants tried to forcibly occupy the suit land. The plaintiffs filed a Misc. Case No. 299/82 under Sec.144 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, Bhanjanagar. By order dated 05.11.1982, the Executive Magistrate restrained the defendants from entering into the suit schedule land. On 22.03.1983, the defendants proclaimed in the village that they would allow their cattle to graze over the suit land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.
3. Defendant nos. 1 and 3 entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They have challenged the O.E.A. Case No. 32/76. They are in possession of the suit land. The suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Defendant no. 2 was set ex-parte.
4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck three issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court decreed the suit with a finding that the O.E.A. Collector settled the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs in O.E.A. Case No. 32/76. The O.E.A. Collector issued rent schedule on 02.08.82 and collected Salami and arrear rent from 01.10.65. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land on the date of vesting i.e. on 01.10.65. The defendants have not raised any objection in O.E.A. Case No. 32/76. They have not preferred any appeal against the order of O.E.A. Collector. The defendants have not substantiated the plea that the patta issued by the O.E.A. Collector had been cancelled by the Board of Revenue. There is no provision in the O.E.A. Act for cancellation of patta and rent schedule. The Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam stayed the order passed by the O.E.A. Collector in O.E.A. Case No. 13/83. But then, the plaintiffs have not been dispossessed. Since the land was settled in the year 1982, after due enquiry the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. The unsuccessful defendants filed T.A. No. 17/84 before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Aska, which was eventually dismissed.
5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
Whether an ex-intermediary whose estate has vested in the State Government but whose claim under the Orissa Estate’s Abolition Act has been rejected can maintain a suit for injunction against an alleged trespasser since he had lost his interest in the suit lands and would be a trespasser himself?
6. Heard Mr. H.K. Behera on behalf of Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.
7. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order passed by the O.E.A. Collector has been set aside by the Board of Revenue in O.E.A. Revision No. 70/83. The plaintiffs are rank trespassers. They cannot institute the suit for permanent injunction.
8. In Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2033, the apex Court held thus:-
“17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of
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
