Dismissed

Umesh Singh v. Sanjay Singh and 9 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2019A227/4662/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 writ petition, the High Court found no infirmity in the lower courts' orders dismissing an application for temporary injunction and an appeal in a suit for cancellation of sale deed. The Court upheld the finding that no prima facie case existed for cancellation. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. No interference with orders rejecting temporary injunction or dismissing appeal.

Umesh Singh Vs Sanjay Singh and 9 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4662 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Umesh Singh Respondent :- Sanjay Singh And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Achyut Jee

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia rejecting the application for temporary injunction in Original Suit No.101 of 2016 and the order dated 10.1.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal.

¶6

The petitioner alongwith two other persons instituted the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 1.11.1995 executed by Rajkaran Singh in favour of the defendants-Ist set. The petitioner admits that Rajkaran Singh was owner of the suit property. According to the case set up in the plaint, the sale deed was never executed by Rajkaran Singh. The petitioner claims that after death of Rajkaran Singh, his properties were inherited by his widow and she executed a will in favour of the petitioner and other co-laterals of her late husband. It is pertinent to note the widow had died in the year 2004 leaving behind a daughter Kamlawati but she has not been impleaded in the suit.

¶7

The case of the defendants-Ist set was that they are owner of the suit property on basis of registered sale deed duly executed by Rajkaran Singh for valuable consideration. Their names are duly mutated in the revenue records during the life time of Rajkaran Singh. Rajkaran Singh never challenged the sale deed till he was alive.

¶8

The courts below have returned categorical findings that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs nor balance of convenience lies with them as the defendant-respondents-Ist set claim their title through registered sale deed from the lawful owner and their names had also been duly mutated.

¶9

This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶10

The petition is consequently dismissed.

¶11

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 25.7.2019

¶13

skv

Umesh Singh v. Sanjay Singh and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Singh v. Sanjay Singh and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indradev Vs Lajpat Rai and Another

Tahar Singh Vs J.Raavindra Gaud S.S.P. Meerut and Another

Ajeem Wasif Vs Saiyed Yasir Ebrahim and Another

Narendra and Another Vs Ram Shankar and 16 Others

Raja Babu and Another Vs Dasrath Prasad (Since Deceased) and 72 Others

Pappu Gupta and Another Vs Shafi Ullaha