CASE SYNOPSIS

IN THE COURT OF LEARND CIVIL JUDGE – 1, SENIOR DIVISION – CUM – SUB

JUDGE – 1
AT, MUNGER

TITLE SUIT N0. 50 OF 2021

MANORAMA DEVI & ORS. ……… ……………………………… PLAINTIFF

VS.
DEEPAK KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. ………………………… DEFENDANTS

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

1. Whether interim injunction under order 39 rule 1 and rule 2 of the CPC for the
scheduled suit property must be granted or not.
2. For the purpose of Title of the schedule suit property.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED:

1. Plaintiff’s Argument:

In regard of the suit property, The plaintiff have the legal right in accordance to the legal
succession, As, the name of the Plaintiff mutated in the Anchal office on the ground that the
scheduled suit property is their ancestral purchase; document dated 22.07.1947

Plaintiff also argued that the defendant illegally proceeds to cancel mutation of the plaintiff
name and got the illegal order from the D.C.L.R Munger (stated that C.O. Jamalpur Wrongly
mutated the plaintiff name and set aside the C.O. order), And then Wrongfully obtain the
malguzari receipt ( Land Tax Reciept) and self declare the total titlement of the suit property
and also wants to the sell of the land.

As of in this regard plaintiff wants an interim injunction in accordance of 0rder 39 Rule 1 & 2
to restrain the defendant from the sale of the property. The plaintiff have the legal right, title
and interest and in the possession of the suit property and sale of such part of the property
will cause “Irreparable Loss” to the plaintiff. And prays before the court for issuance of
Interim injuction against the defendant to restrain them from the selling of the suit property.

2. Defendant’s Argument:

The Defendant argues that the petition under reply is not maintainable and argues on the fact
that the plaintiff did not filed the suit under 4 corners of Declaratory simplicitor (S.34 of the
specific relief act) But Filed a full fledged title suit.
According to the case law: V. Hanya Naik and ors. Vs. M. Krishna Reddy (C.R.P. 4778 and
4867 of 2008)
The High court of A.P. stated that, No court shall grant rmere relief of declaration, if the
plaintiff being in a position to claim other relief did not pray it. Which refers to the settled
principle that, No minor relief can flow in any suit when major relief has been omitted to be
sought by a plaintiff.
The Defendant also argues on the fact that plaintiff have already filed T.S. No. (309/2019)
with respect to the scheduled suit property And that abovementioned sit, which is pending in
the court of Sub Judge – 2 At Munger is filed with the similar facts.
( Principle of Res – sub – judice (s.10 CPC) It prevents the court from proceedings with the
trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly or substantially the same with the
previously instituted suit between the same parties and the court where the issue is previously
instituted is pending have the power to grant relief sought).
Hence, for that injunction cannot be granted as the plaintiff did not come with clean hands
before the Hon’ble court.

Defendant also argues on the fact that no plaintiff or their ancestors has ever come into
possession of even a part of the scheduled suit property for a moment Since from its
acquisition by purchase and only defendant are entitled to peaceful possession of the entire
suit property.
CONCLUSION:
Based on my findings of the Facts and argument made; It seems to be a clear violation of the
Principle of Res sub judice by the plaintiff part as they have previously instituted a title suit
regarding the same scheduled suit property with the same facts ajd circumstances given.
Res sub judice is giiven under section 10 of the civil procedure code which states that No
Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and
substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between
parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit
is pending in the same or any other Court in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief
claimed.
Conditions of Res sub-judice
This section can only be applied if the following condition are satisfied, These are:
● Two suits: Previously Instituted and Subsequently Instituted.
● Matter in issue in subsequent suit: directly and substantially in issue in previous suit.
● Both suits between same parties or their representatives.
● Previous suit must be pending in same or in any other court.
● The court dealing with previously instituted suit competent to grant relief claimed in
subsequent suit
● Parties litigating under the same titles in both the suit.

Purpose behind the res sub judice to protect a person from multiplicity of proceedings and to
avoid a conflict of decisions. It also protect the litigant people from unnecessary harassment.

The rule behind Declaration simplicitor is Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
contemplates certain conditions which are to be fulfilled by a plaintiff. In the State of M.P.
vs. Khan Bahadur Bhiwandiwala and co. (AIR 1971 MP 65)
The court observed that in order to obtain the relief of declaration the plaintiff must
establish that (1) the plaintiff was at the time of the suit entitled to any legal character or any
right to any property (ii) the defendant had denied or was interested in denying the character
or the title of the plaintiff, (iii) the declaration asked for was a declaration that the plaintiff
was entitled to a legal character or to a right to property (iv) the plaintiff was not in a
position to claim a further relief than a bare declaration of his title.
Thus a person claiming declaratory relief must show that he is entitled

1. to a legal character, or
2. to a right as to property, and that
3. the defendant has denied or is interested to deny his
title to such character or right
4. he has sought all reliefs in the suit.