Skip to content


Jarina Bibi and ors. Vs. Md. Rasid Ansari and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata Appellate High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.O. No. 797 of 2006
Judge
AppellantJarina Bibi and ors.
RespondentMd. Rasid Ansari and ors.
Advocates:Ms. Shila Sarkar, Adv
Excerpt:
.....were inferior courts as appeals lie from them to the supreme court. an application for interim injunction was rejected by the trial court and the appellate court. the high court dismissed the petition holding that it was not maintainable. while allowing the appeal, the supreme court held that the order and proceedings of a judicial court subordinate to the high court are amenable to writ jurisdiction under article 226. article 227: article 227 of the constitution confers on every high court a power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory, in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, excepting any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. the distinction between articles 226 and 227 of the constitution is that..........the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands. the defendants contested the said application by filing a written objection denying all the materials allegations contained in the said application. that application for temporary injunction was allowed on may 4, 2005. being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the said misc. appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.2. now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.3. upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record, i find that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted the said title suit for declaration of title, permanent.....
Judgment:
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the judgment & order dated November 22, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Purulia in Misc. Appeal No.26 of 2005 thereby affirming the order dated May 4, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Purulia in Title Suit No.50 of 2005. The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a Title Suit No.50 of 2005 against the defendant for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for other reliefs. The defendants are contesting the said suit. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands. The defendants contested the said application by filing a written objection denying all the materials allegations contained in the said application. That application for temporary injunction was allowed on May 4, 2005. Being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the said misc. appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

2. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted the said title suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs. They have asserted that they are in possession of the said suit lands. In order to show possession, they have filed several documents such as, finally published L.R. Records, receipts of payment of rent to the Government, etc.

4. On the other hand, the defendants/petitioners herein are unable to produce any scrap of paper in support of their possession of the suit lands. Both the courts below have observed that the petitioners have failed to show any paper that they have any right, title or interest over the suit lands by any means whatsoever. Even they have failed to produce any paper that they are in possession of the suit lands. The plaintiffs have alleged that they are in possession of the suit lands and the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit lands and they have started construction on the land and for that reason, the plaintiffs raised objection. Both the courts below have held the concurrent view that the petitioners have failed to show that they have construction for the last 40 years over the suit lands. This being the position, since both the courts have arrived at a concurrent finding and for the reasons discussed above, the finding could not be said to be perverse or without any basis. I am of the view that the concurrent findings by the courts below should not be set aside by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. This application is, therefore, meritless. There is no scope of interference with the judgment supported by reasons.

5. Accordingly, this application fails to succeed. It is, therefore, dismissed.

6. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //