Allowed

Md. Sajjad v. Kedarnath Singh

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2023FAFO/1248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A defendant's appeal against a temporary injunction order was allowed. The High Court modified the injunction to maintain status quo only regarding specific plots (1333 and 1334) where the plaintiff asserts possession, thereby removing apprehensions regarding adjacent plots raised by the defendant. Suit no. 725 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the trial court under application Paper No.-6-C was modified to maintain status quo on specific plots.

Md. Sajjad Vs Kedarnath Singh — Partition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168564

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1248 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Md. Sajjad Respondent :- Kedarnath Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Krishna Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav,Bhoodev Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

This is a defendant's appeal directed against the order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Original Suit No. 725 of 2022 (Kedarnath Singh Vs. Sajjad and others) in terms of which the application for temporary injunction (Paper No.-6-C) filed by the plaintiffrespondent has been allowed.

¶8

Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the description of the plot nos. 1333 and 1334 in the plaint map, on the basis of which temporary injunction was sought, is contrary to the actual position of the plots as shown in the 'settlement map' and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the said relief.

¶9

It is also contended that in the garb of the injunction order, the defendant-appellant apprehends that the plaintiff-respondent may interfere in his possession over the adjoining plot no. 1330.

¶10

Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has fairly stated that the temporary injunction sought before the Trial Court is only to protect the possession of the plaintiff over plot nos. 1333 and 1334 and that the apprehension sought to be raised by the defendant with regard to any interference in his possession over plot no. 1333 is without any basis.

¶11

Counsel for the defendant-appellant states that in case the plaintiffrespondent confines his relief to the protection of his possession over plot nos. 1333 and 1334, the defendant would have no grievance.

¶12

Having regard to the aforesaid stand taken by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would appear that the plaintiff is asserting possession over plot nos. 1333 and 1334, and the defendant is seeking to protect his possession over plot no. 1330, and the parties do not intend to interfere in the possession of each other over their respective land parcels.

¶13

In this view of the matter, and as agreed by the counsel for the parties, it would be in the interest of justice that status quo with regard to the possession is maintained by both the parties over the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

¶14

The order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the trial court upon the application 6-C, in the pending suit O.S. No. 725 of 2022, shall stand modified accordingly.

¶15

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 22.8.2023 Sachdeva

¶16

(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Md. Sajjad v. Kedarnath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Sajjad v. Kedarnath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ramshree and 2 Others

Smt. Sheela Rani Vs Dr. Raj Kumar Malhotra and Others

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Sewak Singh and 2 Others Vs Smt. Nanhi and 6 Others

Smt. Sandhya Sharma and 5 Others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Nankoo (Deceased) and 7 Others Vs Gopal