Dismissed

Ranvijay Singh and 2 Others v. Vith Additional District Judge Deoria and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019A227/9647/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227, upholding the first appellate court's decision to set aside the temporary injunction. The court found the plaintiff failed to prove prima facie case as the map of construction lacked cogent evidence, while the defendant proved ownership via sanctioned maps.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as it was found devoid of merits due to lack of prima facie evidence by the petitioner.

Ranvijay Singh and 2 Others Vs Vith Additional District… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9647 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ranvijay Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Vith Additional District Judge Deoria And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Babhru Vahan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Sushma Devi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

The present petition is directed against the order of the First Appellate Court whereby the Misc. Appeal No. 40 of 2017 (Jangbahadur vs. Ranvijay Singh and others) has been allowed setting aside the temporary injunction order dated 31.5.2016 granted by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 332 of 2016 (Ranvijay vs. Jangbahadur).

¶6

The said suit has been filed with the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant with regard to the suit land which has been shown by letters 'B', 'M', 'N', 'C' in the plaint map. The plaintiff asserted that the suit land is part of Arazi no. 22M., area 0.051 hectares. While raising construction over his Abadi land in plot no. 22M., the plaintiff had left 10 ft. road in front of the constructions raised by him. The construction made by him is known as Baghel market which was raised after demolition of his old house existing over the aforesaid plot.

¶7

By means of the temporary injunction application, the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from raising construction allegedly over the suit land. The defendant has, however, in his written statement taken a categorical stand that the plaint map is incorrect. The suit land, which was shown by letters 'B', 'M', 'N', 'C' is in fact part of the land belonging to the defendant which was purchased vide sale deed dated 22.8.2005. The defendant is raising construction over the piece of land which is part of plot no. 22M. which is a minjumla plot.

¶8

It is admitted to the parties that separate numbers have not been assigned to plot no. 22M. and the suit land has been described as a portion of plot no. 22M., area 0.051 hectares, belonging to the plaintiff.

¶9

The trial court has proceeded to grant temporary injunction against the defendant on the premises that the suit property shown by letters 'B', 'M', 'N', 'C' is disputed land and that the parties are required to maintain the status quo.

¶10

This order has been interfered by the First Appellate Court with the categorical finding that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, inasmuch as, the map of construction of Baghel market, admittedly raised by the plaintiff after the year 2005 i.e. after purchase made by the defendant, has not been brought on record. The assertion of the plaintiff of 10 ft. land being left by him based on the averments raised in the sale deed dated 22.8.2005 executed in favour of the defendant,

¶11

therefore, cannot be accepted.

¶12

It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove prima facie by bringing cogent evidence on record that the open piece of land, which admittedly lie after the constructions raised by the plaintiff is part of plot no. 22M., area 0.051 hectares land in ownership of the petitioners and not part of the land purchased by the defendant vide sale deed dated 22.8.2005.

¶13

This finding of fact returned by the First Appellate Court is not open for interference in the present petition in absence of any evidence on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant, on the other hand, by bringing the sanctioned map of the Municipal Authority on record has established that he is raising construction on the spot after getting sanction from the competent authority.

¶14

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners based on the judgments of this Court in Sayed Shahabuddin vs. Rajeev and others reported in 2015 (128) RD 165 and Kunwar Mohan Rakesh and others vs. Kunwar Mukul Rakesh reported in 2015 (126) RD 811 to assail the said order are misconceived, inasmuch as, all these matters have been decided on the facts and circumstances of the cases.

¶15

No case is made out for interference.

¶16

The present petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.1.2019 Brijesh

Ranvijay Singh and 2 Others v. Vith Additional District Judge Deoria and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranvijay Singh and 2 Others v. Vith Additional District Judge Deoria and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahipal Singh and 5 Others Vs Som Singh and Another

Rajiv Sharma Vs Smt.Gauri Sharma Alias Garuna Garuna Sharma

Smt. Arti Vs Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court NO.1 Muzaffarnagar and 3 Others

Siddharth Jain and Another Vs Smt. Batulan and Others

Mashque Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Allahabad and 4 Others

Hinch Lal Vs Additional Civil Judge and Another