JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Ganesh Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This instant second appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 29.02.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No.07 of 1994 confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.02.1994 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Rajmahal in Title Suit No.43 of 1985. 3. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 18.02.1998 on following substantial question of law :- "Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs- respondents was maintainable in absence of any prayer for declaring title?" 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed Title Suit No.43 of 1985 before the Court of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Rajmahal for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking the possession or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. Further prayer of the plaintiffs is that order passed by the Residential Magistrate refusing to send the records after the records called for by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all orders thereafter as void. Initially, the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj which was later on transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Sahibganj and numbered as Title Suit No.43 of 1985. It is claimed by plaintiffs that they are owners of the suit Schedule land. It is further alleged that mother of the plaintiff Kedar Nath Mandal namely Savitri Devi acquired the suit land in Court auction and got delivery of possession of the same on 27.06.1940 from the Certificate Officer. The defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the suit land and merely on the basis of collusive mutation, the defendants without any valid right and in suppression of order passed by Dy. Commissioner are adamant to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suits Schedule land. Therefore, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated vide Miscellaneous Case No.258 of 1984. Commissioner are adamant to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suits Schedule land. Therefore, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated vide Miscellaneous Case No.258 of 1984. The plaintiffs filed an application under Section 411 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Officer who called for the records from the Court of Residential Magistrate vide order dated 17.11.1984, which was not sent rather order was passed on 01.12.1984. The plaintiffs also filed a petition for time before the Resident Magistrate to not to execute the order and provide some time for filing revision before the Hon'ble High Court but the petition was also rejected on 05.12.1984 and case was fixed for ex-parte order on 10.12.1984. On that basis, the defendants forcibly took possession of the suit land, situated in Plot Nos.6, 7 and 844 measuring an area of 6 Bighas 1 Kathas 4 Dhurs. 5. The defendants appeared and contested the suit stating inter alia that the suit is not maintainable as there is no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiffs have only asked for relief of injunction without getting declaration of their title. It is further pleaded that the land in question belongs to Sarbeshwar Mandal, father of the defendant. It is further alleged that Chabi Lal Mandal (father of plaintiff No.1) and Bhagwati Charan Mandal (father of plaintiff No.2) sold the said area of land for themselves and other minor brother including the defendant to One Jyoti Ghoshain through registered sale deed dated 29.03.1938 and the plaintiffs lost their share and title over the suit property. The defendants came to know about the said sale and purchased the suit property from Jyoti Ghoshain for valuable consideration of Rs.6,000/- through registered sale deed dated 13.07.1979 and became absolute owner of the land in question. The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit property, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by the learned Trial Court :- (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are rightful owners of the suit property? (iv) Whether the order of the learned Residential Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is a valid order? (v) Does mutation confer title? (vi) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled? 7. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are rightful owners of the suit property? (iv) Whether the order of the learned Residential Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is a valid order? (v) Does mutation confer title? (vi) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled? 7. The learned Trial Court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties recorded findings that the plaintiffs have valid right, title and interest over the suit properties. The suit as framed is maintainable and there is valid cause of action. Accordingly, decreed the suit. The defendants filed an appeal No.07 of 1994 wherein also the learned Appellate Court after hearing arguments of the parties proceeded to decide all the issues as were settled by the learned Trial Court. The core issue No.(iii); " Whether the plaintiffs are rightful owners of the suit property? " was taken at first and on the basis of reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence of plaintiffs as well as the defendants arrived at definite conclusion as under :- "I find that the plaintiffs have right and title over the suit property. It would be worth to mention that the defendant has based his claim on Ext.A, the certified copy of sale deed executed by Jyoti Ghoshain in favour of Ramdas Mandal dated 29.03.1938 executed by Chabhilal Mandal, Bhupati Charan Mandal, Ramdas Mandal, Nitai Chandra Mandal minor in favour of Jyoti Ghoshain but that deed was executed during the pendency of Certificate case filed by Secretary of Estate for India against Chabilal Mandal and others. As such, no importance can be attached to Ext.A/1, sale deed executed by Jyoti Ghoshain in favour of the defendant. Therefore, on the basis of Ext.A and Ext.A/1, the defendants have got no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Similarly, Ext.B, certified copy of order dated 11.12.1984 under Section 144 Cr.P.C. made absolute in favour of Durga Charan Mandal and others and vacated against Ramdas Mandal. Ext.B/2, certified copy of order dated 12.11.1988 to show that injunction was vacated. Similarly, Ext.B, certified copy of order dated 11.12.1984 under Section 144 Cr.P.C. made absolute in favour of Durga Charan Mandal and others and vacated against Ramdas Mandal. Ext.B/2, certified copy of order dated 12.11.1988 to show that injunction was vacated. Ext.D, plaint of Title Suit No.09 of 1955 filed by Savitri Bala Dasi against Ramdas Mandal for recovery of possession stating that the defendant has dispossessed the plaintiffs in the year 1946 but what was the result ultimately there is no document to show." Therefore, the issue No.(iii) was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was confirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the concurrent findings of Court below has confined himself towards the question as to whether the suit for permanent injunction can be maintainable without claiming declaration of title by the plaintiffs over the suit property. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. M. Mallappa , AIR Online 2021 SC 698 . In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance upon reported judgment in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2033 , has laid down as under :- "21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under : (a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in the case of Annaimuthu Thevar vs. Alagammal, AIR 2005 SC 4004 ). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case." 9. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case." 9. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of appellants and submitted that there are specific pleadings in the plaint in respect of basis of title and possession of the respondents which has been controverted by the original defendant through purchase of the same property from one Jyoti Ghoshain vide registered sale deed dated 13.07.1979. Therefore, the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court incidentally entered into deciding the issue of title of the plaintiffs by framing issue No.(iii). Since the claim of defendant was based through purchase by his vendor Jyoti Ghoshain vide sale deed dated 13.07.1979, but said Jyoti Ghoshain had purchased the property of suit land during pendency of the certificate case No.280 of 1937-38, hence, the purchase of suit property by vendor of defendant in the year 1938 was null and void conferring no right, title and interest to the vendor of the defendant. The plaintiffs’ basis for acquisition of the suit property through purchase in auction sale in the year 1940 was found to be valid and genuine conferring title to the plaintiffs. In this regard, the reported judgment relied upon by the appellants’ himself in T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance upon reported judgment in Anathula Sudhakar (supra) itself favours the case of the respondents as discussed in para No.21(d). The learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has committed no error of law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents and there is no legal substance in the question of law raised by the appellants and no merits in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. 11. The simple question raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that a suit purely seeking injunction without claiming title and recovery of possession is not maintainable. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. 11. The simple question raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that a suit purely seeking injunction without claiming title and recovery of possession is not maintainable. In this connection, the reported judgment in T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy (supra) relied upon by the appellants himself substantially uproots the very substantial question of law as formulated at the instance of the appellants. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra) at sub para (d) of para 21 itself justifies a suit for injunction without claiming title in some exceptional circumstances. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the suit property was purchased through auction purchase by the ancestor of the plaintiff on 27.06.1940 followed by delivery of possession. The same property was transferred to the vendor of the defendant/appellant on 29.03.1938 during pendency of certificate case. Thereafter, the defendant has purchased the same property through registered sale deed from the Jyoti Ghoshain on 13.07.1979 which was nothing but a waste paper conferring no right, title, interest or possession to the defendant over the suit property. It is also apparent from the record that the plaintiff was being forcibly dispossessed by virtue of an order passed in the proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. He was also not provided sufficient time to prefer revision and the order was made absolute against him. All these proceedings and the nefarious deeds of the defendant were sufficient for giving rise to a cause of action to file suit for injunction. It also appears that the plaintiff has sufficient pleadings showing his title over the suit property and the learned Trial Court after receiving written statement of the defendants casting doubt over the title of the plaintiff settled an issue regarding ownership also and decided the title of the plaintiff. The defendant/appellants have also taken the plea about the maintainability of the suit of injunction simpliciter in absence of declaration of title which has been rightly declined by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 12. The defendant/appellants have also taken the plea about the maintainability of the suit of injunction simpliciter in absence of declaration of title which has been rightly declined by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 12. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I do not find any substance in the substantial question of law relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants. There appear no merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed. 13. Pending I.As., if any, also stand dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.