Dismissed

Shishir Kumar v. Additional District and Session Judge and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018A227/8969/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court under Article 227 dismissed a petition challenging an order that set aside a temporary injunction. The Court found no prima facie case for injunction regarding property based on an unregistered family settlement as a preliminary partition decree already determined shares. Interference was deemed unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no interference with the order setting aside the injunction.

Shishir Kumar Vs Additional District and Session Judge… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8969 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- Additional District And Session Judge And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Raj Kumar Kesari

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

Sri Raj Kumar Kesari has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶7

In a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction, temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been allowed by the trial court vide order dated 31.03.2018. The appeal filed against the said order has, however, been allowed vide order dated 25.09.2018 setting aside the injunction order. The relief of permanent injunction sought by the plaintiff/petitioner is based on a family settlement dated 21.04.2017, which admittedly, is not a registered document.

¶8

The suit has been filed within a period of one month from the date of execution of the alleged settlement, wherein determination on the question of correctness of the document on the evidence led by the parties is to be made. The plaintiff/petitioner is seeking injunction against alleged co-owner of the suit property whereas the defendant has denied the claim of plaintiff being co-owner on the contention that a preliminary decree of partition dated 29.05.1958 was passed determining the share of the parties, where upon the parties have entered into a settlement, based on which the final decree of partition dated 14.07.1958 was passed.

¶9

Considering the said fact of the matter, this Court is of considered view that no prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff for grant of injunction with respect to the suit property.

¶10

No interference is, therefore, required in the order impugned.

¶11

The present petition is dismissed as such.

¶12

However, the observations made herein above would not come in the way of the petitioner for final disposal of the suit.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 Himanshu

Shishir Kumar v. Additional District and Session Judge and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishir Kumar v. Additional District and Session Judge and Another

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

Itc Limited Vs State of U.P. and Another

J.N. Sapru and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahida Vs Habibulla and 5 Others

Ram Adhar Vs Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division ) Court No. 14 District Azamgarh and Another

Smt. Chandrakanta Vs Sompal Singh and 14 Others

Smt. Monika Mandal Vs Vijendra Sharma