Jharkhand High Court
Ram Narain Parihast And Ors. vs Smt. Maheshwari Devi on 21 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(2)JCR73(JHR)]
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite parties and with their consent this revision application is disposed of at the admission stage.
2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 27.7.2002 passed by Sub-Judge 8th of Deoghar in Title Suit No. 18/98, whereby he has decreed the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff/opposite party under Section 6 Specific Relief Act.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
4. The suit property being holding No. 1, ward No. 5 of Deoghar Town belong to Swami Hari Narayananandji and it is recorded in his name in the Government records. The Construction including house, well latrine, boundary wall as well as family deity temple of Lord Vishnu belong to him. Plaintiffs case is that Swami Hari Narayananandji sold major portion of the holding to different purchasers by different sale deeds and the purchasers came in possession of the same. Plaintiff has also purchased in respect of portion of the holding by registered deed of sale dated 22.2.1993 and after purchase he came in possession of the portion of the property, get his name mutated in all revenue records and paying rent to the State of Bihar. Two rooms of the premises purchased by the plaintiff was let out to the defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 20/93 against the defendant/petitioner for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The said suit was decreed and the defendant was evicted from the two rooms.
5. It appears that defendants/petitioners thereafter filed Title Suit No. 11/94 for declaration that all the sale deeds by which the suit property was sold are null and void on the ground that he is deity of the trust. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and against that judgment defendants/petitioners preferred First Appeal No. 337/96 which is pending before this Court. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants forcibly entered into the possession of two rooms by dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom. Hence the instant suit was filed.
6. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter alia that plaintiff was never dispossessed rather defendants has been coming in possession of the rooms by virtue of his own title and the suit with regard to title to the property is pending.
7. Learned trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence both oral and documentary has come to a finding that plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. Mr. Jha, counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy me by referring any evidence which could suggest that at any stage of the earlier eviction proceeding the defendants took the plea that he was in possession of some more rooms by virtue of his own right title and interest. On the contrary, it appears that none of the defendants' witnesses supported the case of the defendants about his possession over the suit property.
8. Taking into consideration the conclusive findings recorded by the Court below on the question of possession, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere with the said finding in absence of any satisfactory evidence to the contrary.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this revision application, which is accordingly dismissed.