Dismissed

Rakhuvinder Singh v. M/S Ist Class Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2019FAFOD/695/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against an order refusing an injunction to the plaintiff-appellant and granting temporary relief to the defendants-respondent. The court found no legal error in favoring respondents who held ownership and filed a counter-claim, noting the plaintiff's unregistered agreement was inadmissible in evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC was dismissed.

Rakhuvinder Singh Vs M/S Ist Class… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 695 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Raghuvinder Singh Respondent :- M/S Ist Class Builders Pvt. Ltd. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudeep Harkauli Counsel for Respondent :- Vijay Praksah

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sudeep Harkauli, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Vijay Prakash, Advocate, for respondents.

¶6

This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has arisen from judgment and order dated 19.03.2019 passed by Sri Harikesh Kumar, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 9, Ghaziabad.

¶7

Court below, on an application 27C filed by defendants-respondents, who have filed Counter Claim in Original Suit No. 249 of 2018 filed by plaintiff-appellant, granted ad interim injunction directing plaintiffappellant not to interfere in ownership and possession of defendantsrespondents in respect to property in dispute. From the record, it is evident that defendants-respondents is owner of property in dispute and suit was filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement for sale dated 17.03.2017.

¶8

Learned counsel for appellant, when questioned, could not dispute that in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”), as amended in U.P., even an agreement for sale of an immovable property of value of more than Rs. 100/- is necessarily required to be registered, otherwise it is inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1908”).

¶9

Moreover, plaintiff-appellant sought injunction against original owner though there was no valid document on the basis whereof it could have claimed a lawful possession and hence an injunction could not have been

¶10

sought against original owner. Since defendants-respondents also filed Counter Claim and that has been accepted by Court below and while rejecting ad-interim application of plaintiff-appellant, similar application filed by defendants-respondents has been accepted and interim order has been passed, in view of fact that plaintiff-appellant could not show any prima facie case and even balance of convenience and irreparable loss in the matter of interim injunction lies in favour of defendants-appellants, we find no manifest error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference.

¶11

The appeal lacks merits. Dismissed.

¶12

However, it is made clear that observations made in this judgment shall not prejudice rights of parties in the pending Suit and the said observations have been made and are confined only for the purpose of considering validity of impugned order dated 19.03.2019 passed by Court below. Order Date :- 1.7.2019 PS

Rakhuvinder Singh v. M/S Ist Class Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakhuvinder Singh v. M/S Ist Class Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 6 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

Brahmavir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Vikas Samiti and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others

rakesh kumar and another Vs brahmdutt and 7 others

Ashoka College of Education Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mariam Girls College of Higher Education Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Mushtri Vs Sibte Ali