Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1398 (JHR)

Rajendra Prasad Singh v. Sita Devi

2009-11-07

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2009
JUDGMENT This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article-227 of the Constitution of India. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit being T.S. No. 97/2004 against the defendant-respondent before the trial court for declaration of his right, title and interest over the property and further for seeking a permanent injunction against Smt. Sita Devi, the defendant/respondent, from interfering with the suit property till the disposal of the suit. In the said suit, it was held that the defendant-Smt. Sita Devi is the sole title holder of the suit property and the plaintiff has no interest or the title over the suit and the said suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, Rajender Prasad Singh @ Rajendra Prasad Singh-the petitioner, preferred an appeal before this High Court, which is being numbered as 113 of 2008 and this appeal is still pending before this Court. In the meantime, Smt. Sita Devi – the respondent in this case and the defendant of the T.S. No. 94 of 2004 has filed a suit being T.S. No. 02/2008, in which she has stated that she was in possession of the suit property but she has been dispossessed by the defendant within six months from the date of the filing of the suit, filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-Rajender Prasad Singh @ Rajendra Prasad Singh filed an application before the trial court alleging therein that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the trial court in Title Suit before the High Court, which is still pending and as such, the proceeding of subsequent suit 02/2008 be kindly stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The learned trial court after going into the merits of the application held that it is admitted fact between the parties that the plaintiff, Sita Devi is the wife of the defendant, Rajender Prasad Singh @ Rajendra Prasad Singh, who brought the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction by way of title suit No. 97/2004. The said suit has already been dismissed. The factual matrix as stated above is not disputed. The learned trial court held that the scope of both the suits is different. The said suit has already been dismissed. The factual matrix as stated above is not disputed. The learned trial court held that the scope of both the suits is different. The suit, which has been filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act can be filed for dispossession a person from the property within six months from the date of filing the suit. In the plaint, it is averred that in the beginning of October, 2007, the plaintiff had gone to Patna for medical treatment for her kidney at Indira Gandhi Ayurvedic Sansthan, Patna where she was treated. Thereafter, she went to some other places and she was informed by her brother that the defendant has forcibly entered into the house by breaking the lock and has been staying inside the house. The scope of Suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is only regarding the dispossession of the plaintiff within six months from the date of filing of the suit. The scope and relief of the title suit are different and the relief sought in the subsequent suit is not an ancillary to the title suit and it can be decided independently and it will not adversely affect the right of the parties. In this view of the matter, I am completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Sub-Judge, Jamshedpur and I do not find any infirmity in the findings, recorded by the trial court, to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.