IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (227) No. | ^?}3 /2010 PETITIONERS: T^W^M^T ^ ..•-^ ..A^^ ^•^"y ^x:w\'^ 1 ^s^ \^\/'. r<VF>/ RESPONDENTS: 1. 2) l.Ramfal S/0 Bulloo aged about 50- years 2. Dhailoo S/0 Ramadhar aged about -\0 years. 3. Salikram S/0 Pyare aged about 30- years 4. Charan S/0 Bulloo aged about-35 years All above petitioners are resident of village- nawagaon., Tahsil- Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Occupation- Agriculturist. VERSUS Indrajeet Singh S/o Nepal Singh Tawar aged about- 67 years resident of village- nawagaon, Tahsil- Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Q..CA. +ky^^ le Collector ^ District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER AURTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HiQH COURT GF CHHATTiSGARH : BSLASPUR Slnaie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Manjndra Mohan Shrjvastava, J. WRiT PETSTSON (227} N0.1815/2010 PETiTiONERS Rarnfai and others RESPONDENTS Versus indrajeet Singh and another Present: - Shri Ravi Maheshwari, counsei for the petitioners. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawa!, Panel Lawyer for the -State. GRAL GRDER (Passed on 21st April, 2010) This petition under Articie 227 of the constitution of india has been fiied by the petitioner, aggrieved by order dated S/03/2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by 9"' Additionai District Judge, Biiaspur in Mteceiianeous Civii Appeal No.7/2010. 2. Petitioners / piaintjffs fiied a suit for deciaration and permanent injunction against respondent No.1 on the pieadings that the property in dispute is their ancestral property and the respondent / Q8efendant in ex-parte proceedings got his name mutated and demarcation done thereby creating cloud on their titie and aiso interfering with their possession. 3. Case of the respondent / defendant is that the property in dispute was purchased by his eider brother Diwan Dashrath Singh, from the predecessor of piaintiff by way of saie deed dated 15/03/1951 and since then they are in possession of the property in dispute. Petitioner fiied an appiication for grant of injunction before the iearned Triai Court vyhich was aiiowed vlde order dated 23/09/09 (Annexure P-3) granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved ^ s ^...1te"riy by the said order of grant of injunction, respondent / defendant preferred an appeai which has been aiiowed vide irnpugned order dated 8/03/2010 (Annexure P-4) which is under ciiaiienge before this Court. 4. Submission of iearned counsei for the petitioner is that the iearned iower Appeiiate Court has aiiowed the appeai and rejected injunction appiication reversing order of the Triai Court, without proper examination of documents on record and ignoring that the saie deed on the basis of which titie is being cSaimed is a fake document which is not registered, does not contain identification detaiis of the iand nor the names of attesting witnesses. Further submSssion is that the property in dispute is an ancestral property of the piaintiff which was never soSd and Khasra Missai of 1928 ciearly discSose that the name of petitioner's ancestor was recorded. 6. From the order impugned, it is reflected that the ieamed iower Appeijate Court has taken into consideration the pieadings, documents and arfidavit of the parties in corning to the conciusion that no prima facie case for grant of injunction js rnade out. it has been recorded that though in the Khasra Missai of 1927- 1928, the name of Modi - ancestor of the petitioner has been indicated but thereafter no Khasra entries are there to shovv that after death of the ancestor, name of the petitioner was recorded. it has also been observed that the pieading has been made that the mutation on the basis of fake saie deed was made, no materiai has been piaced to show that such rnutation was ever chaiienged. it has aiso been recorded that though saie deed does not contain exact detaiis of the property, it definiteiy shows that the sejier was petitioner's ancestor, meaning thereby that a part of the property was soid by the petitioner's ancestor to the 1 ^INW^- Dvvyl' eider brother of respondent No.1. Learned iower Court has aiso taken into consideration that whiie petitioners ciaim that the property was recorded in the name of their ancestors in the year 1927-28, thereafter no documents has been piaced on record to show that their narnes were duiy mutated in the revenue records. Learned Court beiow has aiso taken into consideration the dernarcation report to say that in the dernarcation report petitioneiB have been shown to have encroached upon the iand of respondent No.1. 7. From the impugned order, it is refiected that iearned iower Appellate Court has corne to its concjusion by taking into consideration the pieadings of the parties and documents on record. in the opinion of this Court, no error of jurisdiction or perversity is rnade out frorn the grounds raised and submissions made by the iearned counsel for the petitioners. Petltion is therefore summariiy dismissed without notice to the other parties. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge