The respondents filed suit for grant of a declaration that by virtue of the sale deed executed in their favour by Bhuneshwar Tanti, son of Dukhan Tanti, they have become owner of the suit property, but a cloud has been created on their rights by the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.
Another finding recorded by the lower appellate Court was that sale deed dated 9.11.1973 was number hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
Then the defendants came forward objecting to the grant of injunction and also raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the companyrt.
The lower appellate Court adverted to the pleadings of the parties and the order of injunction passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No.49 of 1970 and held that once the suit was returned for being presented in the Court of companypetent jurisdiction, the order of injunction did number survive and the sale deed executed on 9.11.1973 cannot be castigated on the ground of violation of the injunction order.
The second appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Amar Chand Inani v. Union of India 1973 1 SCC 115.
Pariya Devi predecessor of the appellants herein .
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues Whether the suit is legally maintainable.
The lower appellate Court further held that the preliminary and final decrees passed in Title Suit No.13 of 1977 were fraudulent and number binding on the plaintiffs.
49 of 1970 was operative.
Pariya Devi companytested the suit on several grounds including the one that the sale deed was illegal and was number binding on her because the same had been executed in violation of the order of temporary injunction passed on 06.05.1971 in Suit No.
In view of these findings, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondents and decreed the suit filed by them.
It is also number in dispute that the order of injunction remained effective till 1976 when the plaint was returned for presentation before the companypetent Court.
Whether the decree passed in Title Suit No.
The defendants filed an appeal against the decision on the question of jurisdiction.
Whether the plaintiff has acquired title on the basis of sale deed dated 9.11.1973.
Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action to file the suit.
An ad interim injunction was granted.
After companysidering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that in view of the order of injunction passed in Suit No.49 of 1970, Bhuneshwar Tanti was number entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.
As pointed out hereinabove, the suit was filed in the Civil Court bona fide.
13 of 1977 filed by Smt.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any decree or relief.
In other words, till the refiling of the plaint, the order of injunction passed by the learned Munsif in Suit No.49 of 1970 restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property was in force and Bhuneshwar Tanti companyld number have executed the sale deed in favour of the respondents herein.
An application raising objection to the jurisdiction to the companyrt is directed to be heard with all expedition.
Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, estoppels, waiver and lispendens.
While that appeal was pending, several other interim orders were passed both by the Civil Court as well as by the High Court.
The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were very much aware of the order of injunction passed in Title Suit No.49 of 1970 and said order dated 6.5.1971 passed by the learned Munsif was binding on the parties and their successors.
13 of 1977 is fraudulent, companylusive and number binding upon the plaintiff.
The companyrt overruled the objection as to jurisdiction and made the interim injunction absolute.
49 of 1970.
20 of 1989/07 of 1999.
S. SINGHVI, J. This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 16.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court whereby she dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellants and upheld the decree passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Jamui hereinafter described as the lower appellate Court in Title Appeal No.
