Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and she got her name mutated and paid rent thereafter and came in possession over the said property and she created 10 small plots of different dimensions and areas in the said property of plot number 1387 and a gap of 6 feet wide land for passage in the middle of the said plot was left and after creating small plots Savitri Devi executed and registered 10 sale deed to different persons including the vendors of this plaintiff Geeta Devi and Kiran Bala and most of the vendees have constructed their house over their respective purchased plots and later on Geeta Devi sold her entire purchased portion to the plaintiff i.e. 1152 square feet by registered sale deed dated 7.1.2011 whereas Kiran Bala Patna High Court CR. WJC No.374 of 2017 dt.01-06-2020 executed sale deed with respect to part portion i.e. 558 ft 2 by deed number 866 of her purchased property in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff became owner of altogether 1711 ft2 of plot number 1387 and got her name mutated vide mutation case number 1584/4 of 2010-11 and Jamandi no. 11278/8449 was created in her name and on the other hand, the sale deed of the defendants is of year 2002 and she has illegally got her name mutated in the year 2012 that is after a gap of ten years from the date of her purchase which creates suspicion on the sanctity of her sale deed and on perusal of C.S. Map it appears that the defendant number 1 appeared to have purchased plot number1389 belonging to other and she has not purchased plot number 1387 of the plaintiff and hence the property purchased by the defendant is separate and distinct property. On the other hand, the case of the defendant in brief is that the suit property belonged to the estate of Jodhan Prasad Singh and during C.S. operation one Nirmal Mahto was in cultivating possession of the suit plot on year to year basis and on the expiry of the period of one year of cultivation he was ousted from it, though his name was recorded in the Khatian as raiyat where of by the authority of the survey the title of Jodhan Singh had never been effected with such a wrong entry of name of Nirmal Mahto at any point of time and the said Jodhan Singh died, leaving behind four sons and during partition amongst his heirs the entire plots of tauzi no. 293, having area 15.5 decimal had been allotted to Ashok Kumar Singh s/o late Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and he mutated his name in the year 1969 vide Jamabandi no. 176 and rent receipts had been issued in his name and has sold it to the vendor of the defendant number 1 under registered deed number 1066 on 05.02.1990 and put the vendee in possession and the vendor of defendant number 1 namely Nav Trimurty Sahkari Grih Nirman Society Limited has got his name mutated and later on executed and registered the sale deed through its Patna High Court CR. WJC No.374 of 2017 dt.01-06-2020 secretary under registered sale deed dated 9.1.2002 and put the defendant number1 in peaceful possession and since then she has been coming in possession of purchased schedule A property and because the said property was full of water and was useless when it was purchased and hence the defendant number 1 had not got her name mutated although she applied for it before the circle officer, Patna and she applied afresh for the same in the year 2012 before the circle officer, Patna and on the basis of her application mutation case number 906/4 of 2012-13 was initiated and her name was mutated under order dated 1.10.2012 and Jamanbdi No. 13229 was created in her name and she has been paying rent thereafter and she also raised boundary wall around her land. Considering the injunction petition, the show cause and the pleadings of the parties. It is evident that the plaintiff filed the present suit on the ground that she purchased the said property in the year 2011 from Geeta Devi and Kanchan Bala who purchased the same from Savitri Devi and Savitri Devi obtained the said property from the descendants of Nirmal Mahto, whose name was recorded in the Cadastral survey khatian as raiyat and the plaintiff after purchasing the same got her name mutated in the same year and has been paying revenue to the state of Bihar and on the other hand, the defence and the counter claim of the defendant number 1 is that she has purchased the said property from Nav Trimurti Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. and the said Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. obtained the said property from Ashok Prasad Singh Mauar who obtained the same by way of partition amongst his family members . The defendant number 1 has purchased the property in the year 2002 but she got her name mutated before the Circle Officer, Patna only in the year 2012 that is after ten years and no reasonable cause has been given by the defendants for such delay of 10 years. It is now a matter of trial to go through in depth of the genuineness of the documents submitted by the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.374 of 2017 dt.01-06-2020 parties to decipher the fact that who actually got the perfect right and title with respect to the suit property, but at the present juncture it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that the case prima facie lies in favour of the plaintiff and definitely if the suit property is alienated or disposed off by the defendant number 1 it would incur irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The defendant number 1 also agrees that the suit property must be preserved till the disposal of the suit. On the basis of the discussion made above, the defendants are directed not to interfere, in the suit property and at the same time directed the defendants not to alienate or do anything which can cause damage to the suit property till the disposal of the present suit and as such the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff is hereby allowed. It is further ordered that the findings of the present injunction petition would have no bearing on the final adjudication of the present suit.