Summary
A municipal body challenged a permanent injunction protecting land held under a patta granted to the plaintiff’s grandfather. The first appellate court and High Court found the grant and possession proved, while the municipality failed to prove cancellation, repayment or that the patta concerned different land. The Supreme Court declined to disturb those supported factual findings and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the municipality established grounds to disturb the findings supporting the permanent injunction.
- Who bore the burden of proving the alleged cancellation, refund and different identity of the allotted land.
Held
- The municipality bore the burden of proving its affirmative allegations that the grant had been cancelled, the money returned, or the patta related to different land. It produced no evidence establishing those matters. The plaintiff’s grant through his predecessor and possession stood proved. (¶ 18–19)
- The concurrent findings of the first appellate court and High Court warranted no interference where they were consistent with pleadings, evidence and law and were not perverse. No substantial question of law arose; a fresh appreciation of evidence disclosed no error requiring intervention. (¶¶ 15–17, 21–22)
- On the evidence of the patta and possession, the Court found the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury requirements satisfied and upheld the permanent injunction protecting the plaintiff against the municipality. (¶ 20)
Result
Municipality’s appeal dismissed; the permanent injunction granted by the first appellate court and affirmed by the High Court remained operative.