Dismissed

Suraj Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019A227/5016/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 petition challenging orders in a cancellation suit, the Court permitted deletion of the State as a respondent. Finding concurrent facts established no prima facie title for the petitioner, the High Court refused interference and directed the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to delete State of U.P. from respondents; trial court directed to decide the suit expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5016 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Suraj Singh Respondent :- Yunus Ali And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rateesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent No.1 State of U.P. from the array of respondents.

¶6

He is permitted to do so during course of the day and to rearray the remaining respondents serially.

¶7

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 05.02.2016 passed in Original Suit No. 236 of 2015 rejecting the application for temporary injunction as well as order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the appellate court dismissing the appeal.

¶8

The petitioner instituted the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 07.01.2015 executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 and their agents and servants from interfering in his possession. He has also prayed for a declaration of his title in respect of the suit property.

¶9

The case of the plaintiff petitioner as set up in the plaint is that he purchased the suit property in two parts for valuable consideration from Imami and Javed Khan. His further case is that he has constructed a house over the property purchased by him and is residing in the said house.

¶10

The defendants contested the case by taking a specific plea that there is no sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. They denied the case set up in the plaint that any money was given by the plaintiff to their predecessor-in-interest, Javed Khan.

¶11

The courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner could not bring on record any sale conveyance in his favour though the suit is based on title. Accordingly, the courts have held that there is no prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand, there is a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 which has not been cancelled by any court.

¶12

The findings recorded by the courts below are findings of fact

¶13

and do not call for interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶14

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court be directed to decide the suit expeditiously.

¶15

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously by fixing short dates, without granting unnecessary adjournments.

¶16

The petition stands disposed of.

¶17

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 16.7.2019 Nirmal Sinha

Suraj Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Smt. Priyanka Rajpoot Vs Fast Track Court No. 52 and Another

Maj Gen (Dr.) J.K. Bhalla and Another Vs Smt. Saraswati Devi and 5 Others

Furquan Ahmad Vs Smt. Mushtar Jahan @ Munni and Another

Smt. Mamta Chauhan Vs Lakhan Singh and 3 Others

Satish Kumar and 3 Others Vs Intezar and 5 Others

Central Bank of India and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur Nagar and 3 Others