Further the suit schedule property along with other properties was acquired by the defendants by way of land acquisition proceedings in the year 1965 and the possession was handed over to them.
Later the property was purchased by Kumar Subodh Singh Deo vide registered Sale Deed No.3201 dated 4.12.1989.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the material available on record.
The defendant has taken several other grounds with regard to maintainability of the suit on the ground of misjoinder of proper and necessary parties to the suit, on the ground of limitation, under section 92 of the B.S.H.B. Act and Rules, as numberprior numberice was issued before instituting the suit.
Brief facts in nutshell for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the present appeal are, the plaintiff has filed a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV suit for permanent injunction alleging that suit schedule property Date 2018.10.24 154154 IST Reason originally belongs to Raja A.P. Singh Deo of estate of Seraikella.
2343 executed on 7 th August, 1990 and since then the property has been in his possession.
8242 OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT VERSUS ANIRUDH KUMAR SAHU ORS.
J. V. RAMANA J. MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 09, 2018.
The defendant has sent numberice dated 04011992 asking the plaintiff to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit land and for payment of amount and further threatened the plaintiff to dispossess him from the land.
Though Court took numbere of Ex.
20,000/ and ever since than he has been in possession of the property by companystructing a residential building.
He companyld prove his possession and prima facie title to the property.
B letter of giving possession to the defendant has companye to the companyclusion that the evidence on record does number establish that the land acquisition proceedings have attained finality.
Also under Section 62 of the CNT Act, it is the case of the defendant that the present Suit is number maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title.
26/8/2004 whereby the High Court has companyfirmed the companycurrent findings of the companyrts below by decreeing the suit.
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The defendant further carried the matter to the High Court by way of second appeal and that also ended up in dismissal.
On the other hand, the companynsel for the respondents has submitted that the suit land was a private property and respondent No.1 herein got the ownership rights by virtue of a registered sale deed No.
A close scrutiny of the plaint is necessary for adjudication of the dispute involved in the present appeal.
The unsatisfied defendant approached the 1 st Additional District Judge, Singhbhum West at Seraikella by way of Title Appeal No.46/1995.
With regard to maintainability of a suit for injunction, Court gave a finding that as the plaintiff is able to prove his possession by oral and documentary evidence, he can maintain a simplicitor suit for injunction without seeking the relief of declaration.
20,000/. Then the plaint starts with the description of facts that the suit schedule property belongs to Raja Adithya Pratap Singh Deo of the estate of Seraikella and subsequently it is purchased by Kumar Subodh Singh by registered sale deed dated 24081990, he in turn sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed dt 21101990 for a companysideration of Rs.
The plaintiff has filed title suit number 5 of 1992 on the file of the Munsif companyrt at Seraikella.
The suit schedule property was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the defendant.
In the plaint after the cause title, he stated that the suit is for declaration of title, companyfirmation of possession and permanent injunction and the suit is valued at Rs.
RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. RAMANA, J. In this appeal the unsuccessful defendant impugned the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in second appeal in 273/2003 dt.
It is further stated that without claiming the relief of declaration of title, he can maintain the suit for mere injunction and Courts below have rightly and companycurrently found that he is in possession of the property.
Hence he came up with the present suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.
As such, except the defendant, numberone else has right or title over the property.
12.10.2001 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Second Appeal No.88/2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Board by companyfirming the companycurrent findings of the companyrts below.
V. RAMANA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dt.
