- (1.) THIS Misc Appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hazaribagh, in Title Suit No. 73 of 2012 whereby and where under the petition filed by the appellants under order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has not only been rejected, but the order dated 7.7.2012 by which status quo was granted in favour of the appellants has also been vacated.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff appellants, in brief, is that Tulsi Bedia, father of appellant no.1, purchased two pieces of land measuring an area of 5 decimals under plot no. 1052 and an area of 6 decimals under plot no.1053, khata no. 33 mauja Marar, Thana no.144, Anchal Ramgarh, through registered sale deed No. 12902 dated 2.12.1980 from vendors, namely, Mani Bedia and Kandan Bedia who were descendants of recorded tenant Lal Sahay Bedia. The sale deed was executed after seeking permission under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Tulsi Bedia had constructed two houses on those two plots after having possession over the same and he was enjoying peaceful possession over the same. It is further disclosed in the plaint that after death of Tulsi Bedia, his wife Manjho Devi, executed power of attorney in favour of plaintiff appellant no. 2 for the purpose of mutation of the property and to do legal acts on her behalf. The plaintiff appellant no. 2, at the instance of Manjho Devi, filed an application for mutation which was registered as Mutation Case No. 1061 of 2003, but it was kept pending awaiting final disposal of restoration case No. 9 of 2002 lodged by Kartik Bedia, one of the descendants of Lal Sahay Bedia. That land restoration case was lodged against appellant no.2 since he was having possession over the land in question , i.e. 6 decimals of land under plot no. 1053. It is further contended that respondent no.5 Laldhari Ram got the sale deed executed in his favour with regard to disputed land by Sohri Mostt, wife of Mani Bedia, who had been claiming herself to be the descendant of Ram Sahay Bedia and for that, permission was also obtained under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. In the litigation after death of Kartik Bedia, his wife Lakhi Devi (respondent no. 8) was substituted and she had been pursuing the matter.
(3.) IN the land restoration case no. 9 of 2002, an order was passed on 10.10.2003 by which plaintiff no. 2 ( Anil Baran Gope) was directed to hand over possession of the land appertaining to khata no. 1053 measuring an area of 6 decimals after removing all structures standing thereon. Anil Baran Gope, then preferred appeal vide Ran. Case No. 22 of 2003, but he did not get favourable order and it was dismissed on 13.02.2004. Against that appellate order, he preferred land revision case no. 26 of 2004 in which plaintiff no.1 was also made a party. The aforesaid revision case no. 26 of 2004 also stood dismissed on 29.7.2008 and then W.P (C) No. 2626 of 2009 was preferred before High Court which stood dismissed on 13.7.2011. The plaintiff appellant Anil Baran Gope did not stop his journey and filed LPA No. 274 of 2011, but again he failed to obtain any favourable order and the LPA stood dismissed on 7.12.2011. Thus, the original order passed in Land Restoration Case No. 9 of 2002 reached to its finality. Further case of the plaintiff appellants is that the suit property was purchased by father in law of appellant no.1 in the year 1980 after seeking permission under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, and in this view of the matter another sale in respect of the same piece of land in favour of respondent no. 5 is wholly illegal and untenable in the eye of law and is liable to be cancelled. Considering these aspects of the matter, the plaintiff/appellants filed Title Suit No 73 of 2012 in which initially, status quo was granted, but after appearance of the defendant/respondents, the matter was heard and by impugned order the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rejected the petition filed for grant of injunction and hence this appeal.;