2017 (1) TMI 1791 - HC - Indian Laws

Possession over suit property - Decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' possession over suit property - whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the owners in possession of the suit property? - whether the defendants obstructed to their possession and about the entitlement of plaintiffs to injunction? - HELD THAT - The trial court which had firsthand experience of judging the evidence by the witnesses and the contemporaneous revenue and other record while sale deeds were effected which favoured plaintiffs, as has been made available by the parties before the court, has adjudged that the plaintiffs have a stronger case than the one pleaded by the defendants and has granted the decree in their favour. The appellate court, also on appreciation of evidence, as aforesaid, has reached to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have a better case than the defendants and, as such, confirmed the decree, finding that the evidence would show plaintiffs to be better placed seeking preventive relief especially gauging the same by that the sale deeds had not been questioned till date. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Concurrent judgments and decrees in regular civil suit and appeal regarding injunction on possession of suit property.

Analysis:
The case involved defendant No. 5 appealing against judgments from trial and district courts, seeking injunction against interference with plaintiffs' possession of a property in a village. The suit property was originally owned by Khatunbi, who had executed sale deeds transferring it to subsequent owners. The plaintiffs claimed ownership through a sale deed executed by one of the previous owners. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that they had proven their possession and were entitled to injunction. The defendants, including defendant No. 5, challenged this decision in the district court, arguing that the revenue records and consolidation scheme showed their possession and ownership of the property. However, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the plaintiffs had established their title and possession, while the defendants had not challenged the sale deeds or provided sufficient evidence to dispute the plaintiffs' claims. The appellate court also noted the long silence of the defendants regarding the sale transactions and mutation entries.

The appellate court highlighted the significance of mutation entries in the revenue records but clarified that such entries do not confer ownership rights. It also mentioned the ongoing revenue litigation related to the property. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies and historical records, and concluded that the plaintiffs had a stronger case, especially since the sale deeds had not been contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 5's attempts to question the sale transactions during cross-examination were deemed insufficient to undermine the plaintiffs' case. The court dismissed the second appeal, stating that the plaintiffs' evidence, supported by revenue and other records, was more compelling, and the preventive relief sought through the injunction was justified given the circumstances. The court also rejected a defense raised during the appeal regarding the property description, as it was not previously contested. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, affirming the decree in favor of the plaintiffs and disposing of related applications.

In conclusion, the judgments by the trial and appellate courts favored the plaintiffs, recognizing their ownership and possession of the suit property and granting the injunction sought against the defendants. The courts found the plaintiffs' evidence more convincing, especially considering the lack of challenge to the sale deeds by the defendants. The legal proceedings highlighted the importance of documentary evidence, witness testimonies, and historical records in establishing property rights and resolving disputes over possession.