Disposed

Ramsaran Singh v. Santosh Kumar Jindal and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2024A227/1968/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court bypassed opinion on the merits of the writ petition challenging the District Judge's order rejecting interim relief. It issued notice to opposite parties and directed the maintenance of status quo on disputed property until the next hearing on 09.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite parties; parties directed to maintain status quo until 09.07.2024.

Ramsaran Singh vs Santosh Kumar Jindal and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1968 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramsaran Singh Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Jindal And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rimjhim Singh,Upendra Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki whereby he has rejected the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had filed a civil suit bearing Regular Suit No. 165 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barabanki for cancellation of the sale deed. Before the trial court, he had submitted that he had not executed the said sale deed dated 21.12.1987 and even otherwise on the said date, he was minor and without appointment of a guardian, the sale deed could not have been executed apart from the fact that the petitioner is blind, the trial court after duly considered the evidence on record has dismissed the suit by means of order dated 17.04.2023.

¶8

Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2023, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the District Judge, Barabanki and has also moved an application for interim relief wherein it was stated that the defendants/opposite parties are attempting to sell the disputed property during pendency of the appeal

¶9

proceedings. The District Judge has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner, against which, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the District Judge was of the view that the suit proceedings were initiated after lapse of 20 years and accordingly, he was not entitled for the protection sought by him. The defendants have also put in appearance in the appellate proceedings and stated that the plot is lying vacant but the petitioner on the other hand, has filed photographs to show that the plotting is being done on the said disputed property.

¶11

In light of the above, issue notice to opposite parties no. 1 to

¶12

¶13

Steps to be taken within ten days.

¶14

List this case on 09.07.2024.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status quo over the disputed property.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 23.4.2024 Virendra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramsaran Singh v. Santosh Kumar Jindal and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsaran Singh v. Santosh Kumar Jindal and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Badal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Dinesh Kumar Gupta @ D.K. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others