2013 (7) TMI 1157 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the claim of perpetual injunction by the respondent against the petitioners regarding 21 items of suit schedule property, the ownership rights over the property, and the validity of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds presented as evidence.

Claim of Perpetual Injunction:
The respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioners regarding 21 items of suit schedule property, claiming exclusive rights over the land after the death of his father. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that the property is held by the joint family and the respondent has wrongfully claimed absolute rights. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court considered the evidence presented, including pattadar passbooks, title deeds, and adangals. The Courts found in favor of the respondent, stating that the petitioners failed to establish their possession over the property.

Ownership Rights and Validity of Documents:
The petitioners argued that the suit schedule properties are held by the joint family, and the respondent obtained title deeds improperly. They claimed that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds are crucial in determining ownership and possession. However, the respondent asserted that the property exclusively belongs to him, supported by documents such as Exs. P-1 and P-2, the pattadar pass books and title deeds. The trial Court emphasized the significance of documentary evidence, especially pattadar passbooks and title deeds, in determining ownership. The Court highlighted that the entries in the 1-B register are essential for issuing a pattadar pass book, and the presumption provided under the Act must be considered.

Judgment:
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the decisions of the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. The Court stated that unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence, interference in revision is not warranted. However, the Court allowed the petitioners to appeal under the Act to challenge the validity of Exs. P-1 and P-2. If successful, the petitioners can seek modification of the order. The Court directed that the petitioners can file an application under relevant rules before the trial Court if the documents are set aside by an Appellate Authority. The judgment concluded with no order as to costs.