Dismissed¶11

Intekhab Alam v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023WRIC/8876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation proceedings; remand order dated 18.01.2023; title dispute oral gift deed versus sale-deed; Civil Suit No.386 of 2014 pending; no declaratory relief in plaint; writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedies; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. - 8876 of 2023; Pankaj Bhatia, J.; decided 28.3.2023; respondents State of U.P. and others.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the prayer in Civil Suit No.386 of 2014 shows there is no relief seeking declaration that the petitioner is owner of the property by virtue of the alleged oral gift deed. ¶9

Intekhab Alam Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8876 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Intekhab Alam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Rai,Pratima Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.P.Singh,Abhishek Krishna

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.01.2023 whereby the matter has been remanded for taking a decision after hearing the parties concerned.

¶6

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession/property in question by virtue of an oral gift deed allegedly executed in his favour and the respondents claim to be the owner of the property by virtue of the sale-deed executed in their favour.

¶7

On an application filed by the respondents, an order was passed on 27.07.2018 stating that the mutation proceedings will have to be considered only after the decision is taken in the civil suit pending in between the parties. When the said order was challenged in appeal, the appellate Court was of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded in view of the sale-deed allegedly executed in favour of the respondents.

¶8

It is common ground in between the parties that in respect of the sale-deed executed in favour of the respondents, Civil Suit No.386 of 2014 is pending in between the parties.

¶9

From perusal of the prayer made in the said civil suit, there appears to be no relief seeking declaration by the petitioner that he is the owner of the property in question by virtue of the oral gift deed allegedly executed in his favour.

¶10

In view of the averments made in the plaint, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned which is a remand order. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take such steps as may be advised to him in accordance with law for the proceedings initiated by him and pending.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶12

This order has been passed in the presence of Shri Abhishek Krishna, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

¶13

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 nishant

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Intekhab Alam v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intekhab Alam v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Lakh Chandra Chaturvedi Vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes and Another

Somveer Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Englash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Rai Traders Vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes Lucknow and Another

Jamal Khan Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Smt. Rajni Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others