This single-judge court under Article 227 dismissed a petition challenging orders granting temporary injunctions in a property suit. The court found no illegality in findings based on an uncancelled registered sale deed and the absence of a certified copy by the petitioners.
The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6841 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Santosh And 2 Others Respondent :- Smt. Khursheed And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sajiwan Mishra
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.8.2017 passed by trial court in Original Suit No.42 of 2017 allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by respondent no.1 (plaintiff) as well as the order dated 25.7.2019 passed by the appellate court dismissing the appeal.
The trial court by order dated 22.8.2017 has restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession and use and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff during pendency of the suit.
The courts below have found that the plaintiff-respondent had claimed title to the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 20.10.2016 executed in her favour by Sanjay Kumar S/o of Daya Ram Sharma. On the other hand, the petitioners claim title also through Sanjay Kumar Sharma but they could not produce on record any registered conveyance deed in their favour. Their case was that there was a theft in their house in which the sale deed was stolen. But in that event, a certified copy of the sale deed could have been brought on record but which was also not done by the petitioners. Having regard to the above facts, the courts have held that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and in case she is evicted by force during pendency of the suit, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to her.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Sanjay Kumar had filed an affidavit before the trial court denying execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to him, the plaintiff obtained sale deed dated 20.10.2016 through some imposter.
Concededly, sale deed dated 20.10.2016 is a registered document. It has not been got cancelled or declared void or illegal by any court of law. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners.
This Court finds no illegality in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below so as to warrant interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Order Date :- 1.10.2019 SL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference under Article 227 is warranted against orders granting temporary injunction based on prima facie title evidence.
Whether an uncancelled registered sale deed is entitled to protection against claims of imposter execution absent judicial declaration.
Smt. Santosh And 2 Others
Smt. Khursheed And Another
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
