'Wholly Illegal': MP High Court Restores Possession Of 133-Yr-Old Property To Two Sisters Forcibly Removed By Central Authorities

In doing so, the Court said that the manner in which possession was taken by the defendants was wholly illegal and defied all canons of law.

Justice Pranay Verma in its order observed, “The manner in which the defendants have taken possession of the disputed property is wholly illegal and defies all canons of law. Immediately upon dismissal of plaintiff's claim in which they were held entitled for occupation/possession of the disputed property they were dispossessed within 24 hours without even giving them any opportunity to approach the appellate Court. It is evident that the defendants well bent up and premeditated to deprive the plaintiffs of taking recourse to the remedy as available to them under the law against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and making a prayer for protection of their possession. The defendants wanted to and have in fact preempted the plaintiffs from seeking protective orders from the appellate Court. Such an attitude on part of the defendants is most unfortunate and cannot be countenanced.”

The court was hearing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC moved by the two sisters–plaintiffs/appellants–who were aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Court by which their application for issuance of mandatory injunction was rejected.

The sisters had claimed themselves to be the owners of the disputed property which was purchased by their predecessors in 1892. In 1995, Union of India's Secretary Defence (defendant No. 1) issued notices to the plaintiffs under Section 12 (Power to obtain information) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act seeking documents of title regarding the disputed property. The plaintiffs filed their reply to the notice.

However, defendant No.2–Estate Officer (Defence Estates) passed an order under Section 5-B(2) of the Act informing the plaintiffs to stop construction over the disputed property. Thereafter, the Estate Officerissued a notice to the plaintiffs under Section 4 (Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction) of the Act, 1971.

In 1997, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking declaration of their title over the disputed property and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession over the disputed property. In 2001, the trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Eventually in 2022, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim but it was held that though they have failed to prove their title but are in possession of the disputed property and are entitled to right of its occupation.

However, as per the plaintiffs, the defendants on the very next day came along with labourers and personnel to the disputed property and took over possession without following the due process of law and without any order of eviction passed by any competent Court or authority. Thus, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs along with an application for issuance of temporary injunction. Subsequently, another application for grant of mandatory injunction directing for restoration of possession of the disputed property was filed which was rejected by the appellate Court on the ground that plaintiff's title has been negatived by the trial Court.

The counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed property and were also held entitled for its occupation by the Trial Court. It was contended that there is no order of the defendants for dispossession of the plaintiffs despite which the respondents have dispossessed them from the disputed property illegally.

The counsel for defendants submitted that plaintiffs did not have any title over the disputed property, hence defendants were free to take action for obtaining possession of the disputed property. It was contended that a notice was issued to the plaintiffs under Section 4 of the Act, 1971 prior to filing of the suit itself and acting upon it they took the possession. Since in 2022, there was no subsisting order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants had every right to and have legally taken possession of the disputed property. The counsel submitted that Section 12 (Power to obtain information) and 15 (Bar of jurisdiction) of the Act, 1971 authorizes taking over such possession in which there is no illegality.

After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Court noted that though the plaintiff's claim was dismissed by the trial Court but it was held that they were entitled for occupation/possession of the disputed property. The Court further noted that within a period of 24 hours of the passing of decree, the defendants forcibly took possession of the disputed property.

“It is evident that the defendants did not afford a breathing time of even 24 hours to the plaintiffs to approach the appellate Court and seek issuance of interim order in their favour. In the facts of the case which was pending for about 30 years, heavens would not have fallen if plaintiffs had been granted reasonable time for approaching the appellate Court praying for protection of their possession.”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that a notice under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the defendants to the plaintiffs but there was no order of eviction against the plaintiffs. Thus, the Court opined that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs without taking recourse to the remedies available under the law.

The Court referred to the principles relating to mandatory injunction laid down in Dorab Cawasji Warden V/s. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others (1990), which were:

“(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction.

(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.

(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.”

Relying on the aforesaid, the Court opined that the appellate court should have directed the defendants to restore status quo and to deliver possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs.

The Court further observed that the appellate Court failed to take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and merely observed that the issues raised can only be decided on merits.

Thus, the order of the appellate Court was set aside and the plaintiff'sOrder 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC application was allowed directing the defendants to restore status quo ante and deliver possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs.

The appeal was allowed. 

Case Title: Ann. Chandiramani And Others Versus Union Of India And Others