RANCHI, India, Oct. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 8:

1. The appellant is the plaintiff and the instant misc. appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 879 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been rejected by the Trial Court.

2. The appellant filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession as well as for a declaration that the registered deed of sale dated 09.12.2019 executed by defendant no. 1 through his constituted attorney i.e. defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 with respect to suit property was ab initio void, fraudulent and collusive and not binding on the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction.

3. The appellant claims title on the basis of a registered deed of sale executed on 24.03.2008 from legal heirs of Late Mir Nisar Ahmad namely Syed Ali Imam and others. After the said purchase, the land was duly mutated in Mutation Case No. 1353 R 27/2008-09 and the rent is being paid to the State on grant of receipt to the same. The plaintiff claims to be in peaceful possession of the land by constructing boundary wall over it.

4. It is the admitted case of both sides that the land originally belonged to one Mir Ibnul Hussain (defendant no. 1). As per the case of the plaintiff, Mir Nisar Ahmad purchased the said land on 15.09.2003from Mir Ibnul Hussain (defendant no. 1), and the plaintiff claims to have purchased the said land from the legal heirs of Mir Nisar Ahmad in 2008; whereas, Wajeda Tabassum (defendant no. 3) claims to have purchased the said land from defendant no. 1 on 09.12.2019 from the constituted power of attorney holder of defendant no. 1 and after the said purchase, he also claims to have got the land mutated in his name.

5. Mir Ibnul Hussain has filed a separate written statement, whereby and whereunder, it has been denied by him that he had ever executed the sale deed in favour of Mir Nisar Ahmad who is the vendor to the plaintiff. It is contended that the said deed of sale was forged and fabricated and executed by some imposter and he had never put his LTI on the said sale deed.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there is admission in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC that in his (plaintiff's) absence, defendant no. 3 had put on a shutter and painted it as Sahil Enterprises and had a Hardware Shop running in it with GST registration and electric connection. It is further submitted that if the party is not in possession, then balance of convenience does not lie in his favour as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2008) 4 SCC 594 (Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors.) wherein, it has been held that when the plaintiff is in possession but his title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction. With regard to the principles for grant of temporary injunction, the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi (Civil Appeal No. 13001/2024) wherein, it has been held that the Court should be satisfied that noninterference by the Court results in irreparable injury to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the parties except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqPITC1bhL3IB07DeRg%2FOegUpQV8r4GvgWTclZqjDOauL&caseno=MA/179/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010431892024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.