Anant Ram Verma vs Lalit Kumar Verma and Others

The instant first appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. D.), Lakhimpur Kheri in regular suit no.263 of 2025 (Anant Ram Verma versus Lalit Kumar Verma and Ors.) whereby application for temporary injunction in civil suit filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent no.1 are father and son and other respondents are companions of respondent no.1 who are interfering in peaceful enjoyment and operation of brick kiln ( bhatta ) run by the appellant. The appellant purchased a plot no.4886 in the name of his son i.e. respondent no.1 when son of the appellant was minor and now in the revenue records, the name of respondent no.1 have been mutated on the basis of sale deed, which was made to be executed by the appellant in the name of respondent no.1. The brick kiln situates in plot no.4886 and plot nos.4868, 4889 and 4878 are adjoining to plot no.4886 where the office and other constructions are made. The main dispute relates to plot no.4886. The appellant established a brick kiln in the name of 'M/s Anant Ram Verma Ent Udyog' is situated at Kukra, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶12

FAFO No. 475 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Even a rent agreement was executed by respondent no.1 @ Rs.60,000/per annum and the appellant has been paying it for about four years. The appellant has been paying rent to respondent no.1 regularly. The said rent agreement is registered and due to non-cooperation of the respondent no.1, the same could not be extended after lapse of initial period of four years for which the rent agreement was executed. However, in view of doctrine of holding out, the appellant would be deemed to be in the lawful possession of the brick kiln of such situated in disputed land.

¶15

The ownership of the respondent no.1 on the said plot has not been denied by the appellant and he has been in possession of the suit property as a tenant. Moreover, this is a family matter between the father and the son and the son may not be permitted to evict his father who paid the sale consideration on the basis of which respondent no.1 claims his title over suit property/ land.

¶16

Learned court below has dismissed the application for temporary injunction without considering the relevant facts and taking hyper technical approach. Prima facie case of the plaintiff is proved regarding his lawful possession by virtue of lease agreement and it cannot be confused with a prima facie title while disposing the application for temporary injunction provided under Order 39, Rule I of the C.P.C.

¶17

The plaintiff being a poor father is suffering from Cancer and respondent no.1 is adamant to evict him from premises of brick kiln industry situated over plot no.4886, despite the existing lease agreement between the contesting parties.

¶18

This is a settled proposition of law that person in possession would not be dispossessed without adopting due course of law. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant and he would be out of business if he is evicted from his brick kiln industry being operated on disputed land.

¶19

The appellant will suffer irreparable loss if temporary injunction is not granted and the appellant is evicted forcefully by the respondents.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of

¶21

FAFO No. 475 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. versus Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Anr., 2004 SCC (1) 769 and referred paragraphs 9 and 10, which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶24

"9. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions. Illustratively, we may refer to Munshi Ram and Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration (1968) 2 SCR 455, Puran Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Ram Rattan and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 188. The authorities need not be multiplied. In Munshi Ram & Ors.'s case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in the due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may reenter and re-instate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. In Puran Singh and Ors.'s case (supra), the Court clarified that it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when the possession of a trespasser can mature into settled possession. The 'settled possession' must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. The phrase 'settled possession' does not carry any special charm or magic in it; nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a strait-jacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession. The court laid down the following tests which may be adopted as a working rule for determining the attributes of 'settled

FAFO No. 475 of 2025

4

possession' :

i) that the trespasser must be in actual physical possession of the property over a sufficiently long period;

¶29

ii) that the possession must be to the knowledge (either express or implied) of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser and which contains an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser would, however, be a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case;

¶30

iii) the process of dispossession of the true owner by the trespasser must be complete and final and must be acquiesced to by the true owner; and

¶31

iv) that one of the usual tests to determine the quality of settled possession, in the case of culturable land, would be whether or not the trespasser, after having taken possession, had grown any crop. If the crop had been grown by the trespasser, then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession.

¶32

10. In the cases of Munshi Ram and Ors.(supra) and Puran Singh and Ors. (supra), the Court has approved the statement of law made in Horam Vs. Rex AIR 1949 Allahabad 564, wherein a distinction was drawn between the trespasser in the process of acquiring possession and the trespasser who had already accomplished or completed his possession wherein the true owner may be treated to have acquiesced in; while the former can be obstructed and turned out by the true owner even by using reasonable force, the latter, may be dispossessed by the true owner only by having recourse to the due process of law for re-acquiring possession over his property."

¶33