Dismissed

Saloni Singh and Another v. Yashvant Singh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023A227/3970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an appellate order directing maintenance of status quo. The court held the order was equitable, did not adversely affect parties' rights, and correctly followed settled legal principles regarding injunctions in pending succession suits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed; order dated 9.12.2022 upheld.

Saloni Singh and Another Vs Yashvant Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133624

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3970 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Saloni Singh And Another Respondent :- Yashvant Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Shamasul Eslam,Rajni Ojha,Ravindra Nath Chaubey

¶5

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Rajni Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

¶7

This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 9.12.2022, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Ballia in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2022 (Yashvant Singh and another Vs. Saloni Singh and others).

¶8

The petitioners are defendants in a suit being Original Suit No. 113 of 2021 filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ballia. In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs-respondents sought relief of cancellation of a will deed registered on 23.5.2014 in favour of the petitioners-defendants and an ancillary relief was also sought for grant of permanent injunction.

¶9

By an order dated 8.3.2022, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) rejected the application 6-C filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction. Against the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction, the aforesaid appeal was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. By means of the impugned order dated 9.12.2022, the order of the Civil Judge dated 8.3.2022 was set aside and both parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo and not alienate the disputed property during the pendency of the suit.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that without recording any finding of possession and title, the impugned order has been passed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent though has not been able to dispute the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding want of finding, however, has stated that the plaintiffs as well as defendants belong to the same family and are jointly occupying the property in dispute. It is contended that therefore, it is in the fitness of things that the order of status quo has been passed. It is further stated that based on the Will, since there is possibility of defendants alienating the property, the order restraining alienation is justified and rights of the parties would not be affected.

¶12

A perusal of the plaint that has been enclosed as Annexure No. 4 to the petition reveals that reliefs of cancellation of the Will allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner no.1 as well as of permanent injunction have been sought against the defendants first and second set.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court in support of his submissions:-

¶14

(i) 1999 ACJ 644; Neelabh Prakashan Vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶15

(ii) 1996 AWC 1850; Hanumanthappa Vs. Maninarayanappa.

¶16

(iii) 2009 AIR SCW 7551; Kashi Math Samsthan and another Vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and another.

¶17

(iv) 2019 (8) ADJ 312; Shanti Bai Vs. Narbada and others.

¶18

With regard to the judgment of Neelabh Prakashan , learned counsel has referred to paragraph no. 26 of the judgment to contend that the order of status quo is also an order of injunction which operates on both sides. With regard to judgment in Kashi Math Samsthan , learned counsel has referred to paragraph no. 13 to contend that the party has to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction.

¶19

The judgment in Hanumanthappa is referred by the learned counsel to contend that no injunction can be issued against the lawful owner of the property. While referring to the case of Shanti Bai , it is urged that both title as well as possession are required to be proved for grant of injunction.

¶20

The judgment in the case of Neelabh Prakashan is of no assistance to the petitioners for assailing the order of the appellate court. The observations therein is that the order of status quo is also an order of injunction which operates on both sides. In the judgment of Hanumanthappa , the Supreme Court has iterated the settled legal position that no injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the property. The judgment of Kashi Math Samsthan has affirmed that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned, would not be material at all. In the case of Shanti Bai , this Court has held that an injunction against the original owner of the property in dispute cannot be issued. It has further been held that relief of injunction is equitable and discretionary remedy. It is pertinent to reproduce an extract of the judgement:-

¶21

“ 62 . Relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy. Anyone, who is seeking relief of injunction, must have personal interest in subject-matter and should show violation or infringement of his legal right. In a suit for permanent or perpetual injunction, Court may be called upon to hold enquiry to the entitlement, right, interest or status, as the case may be, of plaintiff to find out as to whether plaintiff is entitled to protection of his possession by decree of injunction. Question of title in a matter of injunction can also be gone into incidentally when such a question is raised by other side. When a person is claiming possession over property in dispute but lacks title, nature of possession assumes importance for the reason that for granting relief of injunction, plaintiff must show a lawful possession over the property in dispute. Long continuous possession can protect a person by seeking an injunction against any person in the world other than the true owner.”

¶22

No doubt in the present case, the order of status quo has been passed which in effect injuncts both the parties as has been held in the judgement of Neelabh Prakashan . However, a perusal of the plaint itself

¶23

reveals that validity of the Will, on the basis of which the petitionersdefendants are staking their claim, has itself been challenged. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and defendants are family members having common predecessor-in-interest. It is the contention of the plaintiffsrespondents in the plaint that they and the defendants second and third sets are jointly in possession of the suit property on the basis of succession but, due to the so called will deed, the right of succession of the plaintiffs-respondents has come under cloud. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, before the trial court can come to even a prima facie conclusion, evidence is required to be led.

¶24

In the impugned order, the appellate court has observed that if the property in dispute is not protected, the purpose of filing the suit would be frustrated. It was noted that the evidence is yet to be led in the aforesaid suit and Will deed being a registered document is in effect. Accordingly, the appellate court directed the parties to the plaint to maintain status quo and not to alienate property in dispute. In my opinion, the aforesaid order does not adversely affect the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants. As a matter of fact given the nature of the relief claimed in the plaint, the impugned order is equitable and deserves no interference.

¶25

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to the order of status quo, the petitioners are unable to cultivate their agricultural land. The answer to this lies in the judgment of Neelabh Prakashan itself, in which this Court has observed as follows:-

¶26

“ 29. In this regard about ascertaining on what a status quo order of a Court may imply, the Supreme Court has also reflected on the situation in re Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. V. State of Bihar (1987 SCC (Suppl.) 394). The Supreme Court observed that the proper course for a party would be, in case any party was in doubt, to approach the Court (as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court) to seek clarification, if the party had any doubt on the meaning and effect of the status quo.”

¶27

Under the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, the impugned order dated 9.12.2022 being equitable requires no interference.

¶28

16. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶29

Order Date :- 6.7.2023 sfa/

¶30

(Jayant Banerji, J)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saloni Singh and Another v. Yashvant Singh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saloni Singh and Another v. Yashvant Singh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Janta Mahavidyalaya and Janta Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Charan Singh (Since Deceased) and 6 Others Vs Bhallu Singh and Another

Barkat Ali @ Raju Vs Abdul Mazeed and 4 Others

Om Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamlesh Kumari and 8 Others Vs Smt. Rajrani (Deceased) and 3 Others

Manish Kumar Jaiswal @ Manish Jaiswal and Another Vs Anil Kumar Jaiswal (Deceased) and 4 Others