Dismissed

Ram Garib v. Lal Bahadur and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2019A227/9744/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 challenging the rejection of a temporary injunction application in a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and permanent injunction is dismissed. The court held that no injunction can be granted against a co-owner or a person representing a co-owner's interest, and the appropriate remedy is a suit for partition before the revenue court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, holding that no injunction could be granted against co-owners or their representatives and directing the petitioner to file for partition before the revenue court.

Ram Garib Vs Lal Bahadur and Another — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9744 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Garib Respondent :- Lal Bahadur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Singh,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- Bhagwati Prasad Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

This petition is directed against the order of rejection of temporary injunction application in Original Suit No.908 of 2009, which had been filed against two defendants, namely, Lal Bahadur and Mohan Lal. From the order impugned, it is reflected that the said suit has initially been filed for simple relief of permanent injunction against defendant no.1 restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over Plot No.174 area 0.1710 hectares. The said suit relief was later on amended with the relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 10.08.1999 executed by defendant no.1, in favour of defendant no.2. It is admitted fact on record that defendant no.1 is co-owner of the land in dispute and on the date of institution of the suit, he was a recorded tenure holder. The suit was filed on 27.09.2009 and the court below has recorded that the plaintiff having impleaded defendant no.2 (purchaser in the suit) was very well aware of the sale deed of the year 1999.

¶8

Moreover, the suit property being an agricultural land, no injunction can be granted against the co-owner or any person representing the interest of the co-owner. The purchaser continued to represent the co-owner of the suit property and the fact that the relief of partition can only be granted by the revenue court, no injunction can be granted. In view of the fact that the defendant no.1 is the coowner of the suit property and his name was recorded in the revenue record alongwith the plaintiff on the date of institution of the suit and further the defendant no.2 had stepped into the shoes of the defendant no.1 by virtue of the sale deed executed much prior to the institution of the suit, no infirmity can be found in the decision of the courts below in rejection of temporary injunction application.

¶9

The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file a suit for partition before the revenue court. No injunction, in any case, can be granted against the co-owner or any person representing the interest of the co-owner.

¶10

The present petition is dismissed, accordingly.

¶11

Order Date :- 5.2.2019 Radhika

Ram Garib v. Lal Bahadur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Garib v. Lal Bahadur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Radha Chauhan @ Pinki Vs Principal Judge Family Court Hapur and Another

Ram Adhar and 4 Others Vs Dharmawati and 3 Others

Smt.Munni Devi Vs Radhika Devi

Shyam Sunder Verma Vs State of U.P. through D.M. Sant Kabir Nagar and 14 Others

Ramakshaibar Vs Kattu and 6 Others

Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Vs Civil Judge and 6 Others