Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. Additional District Judge 5 Th Jaunpur and 68 Others

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2019A227/7595/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an appellate order that set aside a temporary injunction. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the appellate court's view that the defendant-respondents' sale deed was earlier and thus the petitioner's claim was illegal.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition is dismissed as it lacks merit.

Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs Additional District Judge 5 Th… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7595 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Additional District Judge 5 Th Jaunpur And 68 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Haidar Ali

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 26.7.2019, whereby the appellate court has set aside the order of temporary injunction dated 27.10.2018 passed by the trial court in Original Suit No. 6 of 2018.

¶6

The suit was instituted by the petitioner setting-up title in the suit property (Araji No. 645) on the basis of a sale deed dated 31.1.2015 allegedly executed in his favour by Ram Ji Giri.

¶7

The defendant-respondents contested the suit by filing objections claiming title over the suit property on the basis of a sale deed from the same person, but which was earlier in point of time i.e. 31.1.2012. They took a specific plea that they had instituted Suit No. 222 of 2015 against the plaintiff-petitioner, in respect of the same property, for permanent injunction. The said suit is pending. The petitioner instituted the instant suit canceling this fact.

¶8

The appellate court in the impugned order has held that prima facie the property is the same and since the sale deed in favour of the defendant-respondents is earlier in point of time and consequently the sale deed on basis of which the plaintiff is claiming title, is void on the face of the record. It has also been held that the respondent was in possession of the suit property.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that the

¶10

instant suit is in respect of some other property not covered by the sale deed of the year 2012 in favour of the defendantrespondents. Consequently, the view taken by the appellate court that the sale deed in respect of the same land obtained by the petitioner from the same person after he had already transferred the land in favour of the defendant-respondents is apparently illegal, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

However, it is clarified that the trial court while deciding the suit on merits, shall not be influenced by any finding recorded in the impugned order, nor any observation made herein.

¶13

(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 24.10.2019 Chandan

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. Additional District Judge 5 Th Jaunpur and 68 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. Additional District Judge 5 Th Jaunpur and 68 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

Rameshwar Singh Vs Amar Nath Rai, District Inspector of Schools

Hasan Isa @ Asad Vs Civil Juege Junior Division and 4 Others

Anuj Kumar Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nagina Distt Bijnor and 2 Others

Smt. Usha Tripathi Vs Tauab Ali and 27 Others

Smt. Chiraeya Devi @ Panmati Devi Vs Ramdas and Another

Raj Kumar Datt Giri Vs Virendra Giri and 8 Others