Mohd. Ali and 5 Others Vs Nikhil Mishra and 7 Others

Heard Sri Mohd. Chand Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Pathak, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and perused the records.

¶11

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 15.07.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Lucknow in Misc. Civil Appeal No.98 of 2024, whereby the appeal filed by the opposite party no.1 against an order dated 13.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.45, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1235 of 2021 granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs was set aside.

¶12

The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioners seeking a decree for cancellation of a sale deed dated 15.03.2021 executed in favour of the petitioners and a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land forming part of Gata No.533, situated in Village Sadarpur Karaura, Pargana & Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow and from making any constructions over the land in question.

¶13

It is relevant to note that the plaint does not contain any further description of the property in dispute bearing Gata No.533 inasmuch as neither boundaries of the land are mentioned in the plaint nor its area is mentioned.

¶14

The plaintiffs pleaded that the parties are joint owners of the land in question and they sought cancellation of sale deed executed by some of the co-owners in favour of the petitioners in respect of a part of joint property.

¶15

Initially the learned trial court has passed an order dated 13.02.2024 granting temporary injunction and directing the parties not to raise any

¶16

A227 No. 6452 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

construction over the land bearing Gata No.533, measuring 0.1095 hectare situated in Village Sadarpur Karaura, Pargana & Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow, not to create any third party interest and to maintain status-quo. This order has been set aside in appeal by the impugned order.

¶19

The appellate court has recorded that the prior to execution of sale deed in question, which is sought to be cancelled, a co-tenure holder Sabir Ali had executed a sale deed dated 27.01.2021 in respect of 0.033 hectare in favour of Dinesh Narayan Mishra. On 13.01.2020 Moharram Ali had executed a sale deed in respect of 126.486 square meter land in favour of Smt. Urmila. Both the sale deeds have been executed with the consent of all the co-tenure holders. These facts have not been disclosed in the plaint. The names of purchasers have been mutated in the revenue records.

¶20

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has stated that the petitioner no.1 had witnessed the execution of sale deed dated 13.01.2020 executed by Moharram Ali in favour of Smt. Urmila.

¶21

The appellate court has held that the plaintiffs are guilty of concealment of fact of execution of earlier sale deeds and they have not impleaded the purchasers as parties to the suit, whereas as per narration made in the sale deeds the purchasers have been put in possession of the property purchased by them.

¶22

The appellant/opposite party no.1 has raised some constructions on the land purchased by him and this fact has also not been mentioned in the plaint. The appellate court has also observed the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit seeking partition of property but they have failed to do so.

¶23

The appellate court found that the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury.

¶24

Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the property in question has not yet been partitioned no sale deed could have been executed in respect of specific portions of the property.

¶25

When at least three sale deeds have been executed in respect of various portions of properties, two of which were executed prior to execution of sale deed which is sought to be cancelled by way of suit; all the sale deeds mentioned that the possession has been handed over to the purchasers; the petitioner no.1 is a witnesses of execution of one of the earlier sale deeds and he has no grievance against the earlier sale deeds, the plaintiffs have not sought partition of the property. In these circumstances the mere challenge

¶26

A227 No. 6452 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

made to the last of the three sale deeds without challenging the execution of the earlier sale deeds which were in the knowledge of the plaintiffs and without disclosing this fact clearly disentitles the plaintiffs to seek the discretionary relief of injunction.

¶29

The impugned order dated 15.07.2025 has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Lucknow after taking into consideration the entire relevant facts and circumstances and a well reasoned exercise of discretion by the appellate court cannot be said to be suffering from any such error as warrants any interference by this court in exercise of its power of superintendence. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶30

November 11, 2025 Ram.

¶31

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Ali and 5 Others v. Nikhil Mishra and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ali and 5 Others v. Nikhil Mishra and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Utsav Matanheliya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Shivvaran @ Shiv Varan Tiwari Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Musafirkhana Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Ashish Mohan Gupta and 2 Others Vs Smt. Beena Madheshia and 2 Others

Shubham Pal @ Shivam @ Karan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ankit Verma Vs Prin. Judge Family Court Lko. and Another

Subhash Chandra Tivari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 9 Others