Shiv Chandra Purvey and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Shiv Chandra Purvey and anr. vs State of Bihar and ors.

Disposition Application dismissed Court Patna Decided Mar 17, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/129264

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/129264
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Mridula Mishra, J.
Decided On: Mar 17, 2005
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 10491 of 2002
Subject: ;Property;Civil
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Title Suit - Demarcation of boundary of plot--Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of facts, directed to demarcate the land under dispute on the basis of the possession of the parties as well as the finding recorded in the title suit--SDO not acted as an Executing Court--He only verified the correctness of the posses...

Key legal issue: ;Property;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shiv Chandra Purvey and anr.

Advocate Shivnandan Pd. Singh, Kaushal Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar, Advs.

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Advocate Pramod Mishra, Ashok Kumar Prasad and Vivek Kumar, Advs. for respondent No. 6

Excerpt

title suit - demarcation of boundary of plot--sub-divisional officer on the basis of facts, directed to demarcate the land under dispute on the basis of the possession of the parties as well as the finding recorded in the title suit--sdo not acted as an executing court--he only verified the correctness of the possession of the parties from the judgment and decree passed in the title suits and title appeals--held, no illegality in the impugned order. - - 25 of 1986 as well as title appeal no. 75 of 1996, of 2002. 3. by the impugned order the sdo jhanjharpur taking into consideration the judgment and decree passed in different suits and appeals has directed to demarcate the land under dispute on the basis of the possession of the parties as well as the finding recorded in the title suit......an executing court and has executed the order passed by the civil court in the title suits and appeals.4. respondent no. 6 has filed a counter affidavit and it has been submitted that the petitioners themselves got initiated this proceeding and participated through the proceeding. the measurement was done in his presence which has been signed by them. this application has been filed by the petitioners only because the impugned order was not passed according to their choice and according to their plan. it has further been submitted that the sdo has not acted as an executing court. the sdo has simply demarcated the land on the basis of the possession of the parties for which the sdo has got jurisdiction.5. considering the fact that the petitioners themselves have originated this proceeding. i do not find that the sdo has acted as an executing court. from his order it transpires that he simply passed an order of demarcation on the basis of the possession of the parties as decided by the civil court. no where it has been mentioned by the civil court that the decree passed by the civil court in different title suits or appeals is being executed by him. simply he certified the correctness of the possession of the parties from the judgment and decree passed in the title suites and title appeals.6. accordingly i do not find any illegality in the order. since the petitioners have not come before this court with clean hands, his prayer cannot be entertained. accordingly this application is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Mridula Mishra, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.

2. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated '3.7.2002, passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Jhanjharpur in Misc. Case No. 1/2002. This Misc. case was initiated on an application filed by the petitioners themselves with a prayer that the boundary of plot Nos. 1213, 1214 and 1219 should be demarcated on the basis of the possession of the parties taking into consideration the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 8/57, Title Appeal No. 195 of 1953, Title Suit No. 25 of 1986 as well as Title Appeal No. 75 of 1996, of 2002.

3. By the impugned order the SDO Jhanjharpur taking into consideration the judgment and decree passed in different suits and appeals has directed to demarcate the land under dispute on the basis of the possession of the parties as well as the finding recorded in the title suit. Since the petitioners did not succeed in their plan they had filed this writ application. Petitioners have challenged this order on the ground that even if the petitioners wrongly invoked the jurisdiction by filing their case, the SDO cannot be vested with the power of Executing Court merely by filing an application by the petitioners. The order impugned indicates that the SDO has exercised jurisdiction of an executing Court and has executed the order passed by the Civil Court in the title suits and appeals.

4. Respondent No. 6 has filed a counter affidavit and it has been submitted that the petitioners themselves got initiated this proceeding and participated through the proceeding. The measurement was done in his presence which has been signed by them. This application has been filed by the petitioners only because the impugned order was not passed according to their choice and according to their plan. It has further been submitted that the SDO has not acted as an executing Court. The SDO has simply demarcated the land on the basis of the possession of the parties for which the SDO has got jurisdiction.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioners themselves have originated this proceeding. I do not find that the SDO has acted as an executing Court. From his order it transpires that he simply passed an order of demarcation on the basis of the possession of the parties as decided by the Civil Court. No where it has been mentioned by the Civil Court that the decree passed by the Civil Court in different title suits or appeals is being executed by him. Simply he certified the correctness of the possession of the parties from the judgment and decree passed in the title suites and title appeals.

6. Accordingly I do not find any illegality in the order. Since the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean hands, his prayer cannot be entertained. Accordingly this application is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2005 Same Parties Shiv Chandra Purvey and anr. vs State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject ;Property;Civil Same Judge Mridula Mishra, J.

;Property;Civil