Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Narendra Pratap Singh and Others - Appellants
Versus
Ram Jeet and Others - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 294 of 2002
Decided On : 15-04-2019
For the Appellant : D.C.Mukerji, O N Tripathi, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Ramesh Chandra Pandey
For the Respondent: U.S.Sahai, H.S.Sahai, R.V.Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for permanent injunction may not be maintainable if the auction has already been confirmed, and possession of the disputed land has been delivered to the appellants. Additionally, the failure to challenge the auction sale and seek relief for setting aside the sale within the period of limitation may impact the maintainability of the suit.
Headnote:
C.P.C. - Civil Appeal - U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964 - U.P. Cooperative Societies Act - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - The court discussed the applicability of the U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964, the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in a case involving a suit for injunction. The court analyzed the legal provisions and their implications on the case, ultimately setting aside the impugned judgment and decree.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction, claiming that the defendant bank had no right to issue recovery certificate and to recover the outstanding amount as land revenue. The defendants contested the suit, stating that the loan was granted and mortgaged as per the provisions of the U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964, and the suit was barred by the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable as the auction had already been confirmed, and possession of the disputed land had been delivered to the appellants. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had failed to challenge the auction sale and had not sought relief for setting aside the sale within the period of limitation.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction, the legality of the auction sale, and the applicability of specific legal provisions such as Rule 285-I and K of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable as the auction had already been confirmed and possession of the disputed land had been delivered to the appellants. The court also emphasized that the plaintiffs had failed to challenge the auction sale and had not sought relief for setting aside the sale within the period of limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside. No order as to costs was made.
ORDER :
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. This second appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2002 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Sultanpur in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 1997 whereby appeal filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 was allowed.
3. The relevant facts need mention in brief as follows.
4. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction bearing Original Suit No. 24 of 1987 (Ram Jeet Singh and another versus U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. and others including the appellants herein) seeking injunction from proceeding on the basis of recovery certificate and to confirm the auction sale and not to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs on the auction land. The suit was filed on the grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff no. 1 Ram Jeet Singh was minor as he was aged about 16 years; he was under the guardianship of his mother Jugura Devi; the plaintiffs had not given any application to defendant no. 1 for becoming member or for taking loan; in the year 1982, the father of plaintiff no. 1, namely, Ram Prasad Singh and plaintiff no. 2, namely, Jai Bahadur Singh moved an application before defendant no. 1 bank for obtaining loan of Rs. 70,000/-; plaintiff no. 1 was not aware regarding the proceedings on the said application as he was minor. It was alleged that in the month of June, 1986, Amin from Tehsil Amethi came to the house of plaintiffs to inform them that defendant no. 1 Bank had issued recovery certificate of Rs. 47,000/-against Ram Prasad Singh and Jai Bahadur Singh, and on the basis of the said recovery certificate, the said amount was to be recovered as land revenue; defendant no. 1-Bank had no right to issue recovery certificate and to recover the outstanding amount as land revenue; the defendant bank used to advance loan on mortgage of the land and for recovery of the outstanding amount; the provisions of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964 are applicable. It was also alleged that in the month of July, 1986, the plaintiffs gave a reference of notice under section 117 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act was issued. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs came to know that the land, particulars of which are given in the plaint, were auctioned but no proclamation was issued; no bid was given and entire proceedings of auction have been conducted to give benefit to defendant nos. 2 and 3 (who are appellants herein) and they have no right to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction.
5. The suit was contested by defendant no. 1, U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank (in short "the bank") by filing written statement. The bank denied the allegations made in the plaint; it was stated that on 29.9.1981, Ram Prasad Singh, father of plaintiff no. 1 Ram Jeet Singh and plaintiff No.2 Jai Bahadur Singh moved an application for obtaining loan for purchasing of a tractor; on the said application, the photograph of Ram Prasad Singh was affixed and Khatauni of the land was also attached. The loan application was also signed by plaintiff no. 2 Jai Bahadur Singh; after due enquiry, a loan of Rs. 70,000/-was granted to Ram Prasad Singh father of plaintiff no. 1 Ram Jeet Singh and plaintiff no. 2 Jai Bahadur Singh. Ram Prasad Singh father of plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 6 as well as plaintiff no. 2 Jai Bahadur Singh mortgaged their land vide registered mortgage deed and also executed a demand promissory note dated 23.01.1982; the amount of loan was disbursed on 23.01.1982 through cheques; on the request of Ram Prasad Singh, a draft no. AM 331790 dated 29.01.1982 was issued to Ram Prasad Singh drawn on State Bank of India; a tractor was purchased from M/s U.P. State Agr
