Dismissed

Kailashchandra Agrawal v. Mangatrai Agrawal and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2011WP227/1602/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the District Judge's reversal of a temporary injunction. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the property was joint family property and thus lacked a strong prima facie case to restrain the alleged absolute owner from alienation.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kailashchandra Agrawal Vs Mangatrai Agrawal and Ors. — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. 227 No. 1602/2011

¶2

PETITIONER: Kailashchajttdra Agrawal Aged about (Plaintiff/respondent 40 years S/o Mangat Rai Agrawal Profession Business R/o-Dharainjaygarh Road, Madaapur, Tehsil Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.). Vli'.RSITS 1. Mangatrai Agrawal Aged about 67 Years S/o Late Gaapat Rai Agrawal ia the Couxt belowj Profession Busiaess R/o Stetion Road, Kharsia Tehsil Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.). 2. Sajan Kumar Agrawal Aged about 44 Years S/o Maagatrai Agrawal Profession Business Residence Statiou Road, Kharsia Tehsil Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.). 3. Ramavtar Agrawal Aged about 38 Year S/o Mangatrai Agrawal Profession Busiuess Residence Station Road, Kharsia, Tehsil Kharsia District Raj^arh (C.G.). 4. Siut. Pushpa Devi Agrawal Aged about 50 years D/o Man^gatrai Agrawal W/o Govind Mittal R/o, C/o Mittal Electricals, Transport Nagar, Korba District Korba (C.G.). 5. Sint. Manju Devi Agrawal Aged about 48 years S/o Mangatrai Agrawal W/o Bhagvandas Agrawal R/o, C/o C.G. Sales Corporation, Darri Road, Korba District Korba (C.G.). 6. Sm.t. Kaatadevi Agrawal Aged about 42 years S/o Magatrai Agrawal W/o Arunkiunar Agrawal R/o, C/o In front of Thana, Patfhalgaon, TehsU Patthalgaon District Jashplir Nagar (C.G.). 7. Snit. Savita Daasena Aged about 28 years W/o Bharat Bhusaa Dansena R/o Gram Ulda Post Sarvaui TehsU Kharsia Distnct Raigarh (C.G.). 8. Dflip Kuiaar Dubey Aged about 52 years S/o Nikaafh Dubey R/o Dhangardipa, Shankar Nagar, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.). 9. Vikram Kuxnar Shanaa Aged Shanaa Aged Aged about 38 years S/o Shiv Kumar Sharma R/o Hamalpara, Gaushala Road Kharsia, Tehsil Kharsia Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.). 10. Bharat Bhushan Paadey Aged about

¶3

Vikram Kuxnar Shanaa Aged Shanaa Aged Aged about 38 years S/o Shiv Kumar Sharma R/o Hamalpara, Gaushala Road Kharsia, Tehsil Kharsia Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.). Bharat Bhushan Paadey Aged about 37 years S/o Maruaohaa Pandey R/o Gopunahka, TehsU Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.).

¶4

11,	Snit. Apama Shann	a Aged about 25
	years W/o Vikram	Kuinar Sharma
	R/o Hamalpara,	Kharsia Tehsil
	KharsiaDistrictKsd	gaih (C.G.).
12.	State of Chhatt	isgarh Through
	CoUector, Raigarh (C.G.).	District Raigarh

¶5

PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 227 QF THJB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶6

(SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.)

¶7

Present:- Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 6. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No, 12.

¶8

ORAL- ORDBR

¶9

(Passedoa 04/08/2011)

¶10

By ftlis petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has chaUenged fhe legality and propriety of the orderdated 7/3/2011 passed by District Judge, Raigarh ia Misc. Civil Appeal No. 19/2009 reversing flie order of grant of rujunction dated 29/9/2009 passed by CivU Judge Classg2, Kharsia, District Raigarh in civil suit No. 129A/09 whereby on the ground fhat property uader dispute appears to toe priiaa facie joint fanuly property of petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 6 granted teniporary injunction restrainiag respondent No. 1 froiu alienation, same was chaUeaged before the District Judge, Raigarh whfle reversing the order on fhe ground tliat present petitioner has failed to prooffhe primia facie case.

¶11

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate for the petLtioner, Shri Soinnatli Verina, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 6 aad Shri Saajeev Kuaiar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 12 are heaid.

¶12

Both ffae order inipugned, copy of written stateaient and copy of ottier docuiaents perused.

¶13

As per plauit aUegation, petitioner is son of respondent No. 1 is a nieiaber ofjoint Hindu-family property, respondent No. 1 has received ancestral property froia his fatlier aad froin fhe iricoiue of the aforesaid

¶14

ancestral property, he has acquired tbe disputed property. Out of aforesaid property, respondent No. 1 has sold soaie property to respondents No. 7 to 11.

¶15

¶16

Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner subiaits that present petitioner is having l/7th share over the property aad havuig iaterest over eveiy inch of fhe land. Learued counsel for the petitioner furfher subinits that property has been acquired by Finn, initiaUy member of F'inn was grandfafher of the petitioner along with his brother aad thereafter Finm was succeeded by the fafher of petitioner along with hls brofher which also shows prima facie strong case in favour of fhe petitioner.

¶17

On the other hand, leamed counsel for fhe respondents No. 1to 6 and 12 opposed the petition and subinits fhat petitioaer has filed siiit for declaration of l/7tfa share and iujunction fi~om ahenatLon, he has not filed auy suit for partiti.on. Property in. dispute has been acquired by respondent No. 1 and is a self-acquired property of respondent No. 1 who is haviug absolute and unfettered right of alienation.

¶18

¶19

In order to claim. ofteniporaiy nijuiiction, present petitioner was under obligation to show priina facie strong case iu his favour by cogent inaterial aad to show property has been acquired by respondent No, 1 as ajoiat. fanuly property or froin the tacoiue ofjoint family property or ? the property was copareenery in nature but Para-3 of plaint reveals that respondeut No. 1 has received fhe property froin his father aud has acquired sonie property froru fhe uicoine of aforesaid property which he Iias received froni his father. It appears froia the plaint aUegation that all fhe property has been recorded in the name of the respondent No. 1 as an owner. Eveu ia case ofjoiat family property Karta offhe family is stiU conipetent to aUenate the property for legal necessily. Plaint allegation does not rcveal fhat respondent No. 1 has aUenated the property wifhout an^ legal necessity. Respondent No. 1 has speci&cally

¶20

f,^"-:-;-:--.--.

¶21

¶22

claimed fhat it is his self-acqiiired property. In these circuinstances without any strong priina facie niaterial to show fhat property was only coparcener or joint Huidu famity property recorded owner caiuiot be restrained froia exclusive enjoyinent of his property includiug right to aUeuate the property alfhough aUenation shatl be subject to the final decision of the suit. While reversiug the order passed by trial Court, Court below has not coaiiuitted any iUegality requiring any interference iii exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction. Consequentty, petition is liable to be disraissed and fa hereby disinissed.

¶23

No order as to costs.

¶24

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

Kailashchandra Agrawal v. Mangatrai Agrawal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailashchandra Agrawal v. Mangatrai Agrawal and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Ramji Sahu Vs Sohanlal and Ors.

Ramchand Adwani Vs Bisan Das and Ors.

Victor Christan Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Smt.Ramin Bai Vs Nazru and Ors.

Smt. Shashi Dubey Vs Ashok Prasad Sinha and Others

Smt. Shashi Dubey Vs Dinesh Tiwari and Ors.