Dismissed

Smt.Pratima Mishra and 2 Others v. Indrapal Yadav and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2018A227/8678/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 was dismissed. The High Court found no infirmity in the District Judge's order allowing a revision against a suit for permanent injunction. Relief was denied as the petitioner, not a registered tenure holder, seeks injunction on agricultural land, requiring revenue court adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Relief of permanent injunction denied.

Smt.Pratima Mishra and 2 Others Vs Indrapal Yadav and 3… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8678 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt.Pratima Mishra And 2 Others Respondent :- Indrapal Yadav And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,Guru Prasad Mishra

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the order dated 28.8.2018 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Revision No. 39 of 2018 (Indrapal Yadav and others vs. Smt. Pratima Mishra and others) whereunder the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants contesting the suit being barred by law, based on an unregistered agreement to sell of a agricultural land, has been allowed.

¶7

The Original Suit No. 931 of 2017 (Smt. Pratima Mishra vs. Indrapal Yadav and others) was filed by the petitioners with the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that an unregistered agreement to sell has been arrived between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 19.5.1998, whereunder, the possession of the suit property was handed over to Sri Bhagwati Saran Mishra, father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and husband of the petitioner no. 1 and since then they are in possession of the same.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the question as to the agreement in dispute being unregistered agreement could not have been adjudicated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, inasmuch as, it would require appreciation of evidence of the parties.

¶9

This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable for the admitted fact that the agreement to sell, which was basis of the suit is an unregistered agreement. It is also admitted that the suit property is an agricultural land and the name of the petitioner's husband has never been recorded in the revenue record.

¶10

In view of the said admitted fact, this Court finds that the relief of permanent injunction with regard to the agricultural land, sought by a person who is not recorded tenure holder, cannot be granted by the civil court.

¶11

The dispute being raised by the petitioners would require adjudication of rights of the plaintiffs viz-a-viz defendants which can only be done by the revenue court.

¶12

For the aforesaid, no infirmity is found in the order impugned. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 27.11.2018/Brijesh

Smt.Pratima Mishra and 2 Others v. Indrapal Yadav and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Pratima Mishra and 2 Others v. Indrapal Yadav and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Sarasvat Vs Principal Judge Family Court Mathura and Another

Sadhvi Divya Yog Maya Saraswati Cheli Sadhvi Guru Mata Shanti Devi Saraswati Vs Suryansu Chauhan and 03 Others

Smt. Archana Devi Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 Others

Vijay Shankar Tripathi Vs Kashi Gomati Sanyukt Gramin Bank Varanasi and 4 Others

Savitri Devi Vs Virendra Singh and 2 Others

Smt.Ram Dulari Vs Additional District Judge and 4 Others