Allowed

Md. Mushtaque Ahmad @ Md. Must v. Munni Devi

Patna HC15 Jul 2013MA/158/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC allowed Appeal MA 158/2012. Single Judge held that parties must maintain status quo on possession and no sale transaction can occur without trial Court permission during suit pendency, directing expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directing parties to maintain status quo on possession and warning against any sale transaction without trial Court permission during suit pendency.

Md. Mushtaque Ahmad @ Md. Must Vs Munni Devi — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No.158 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Md. Mushtaque Ahmad @ Md. Mustaque Alam S/O Late Akhtar Hussain R/O Village- Bagdulhan, Post Office- Hajipur, Police Station- Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali 2. Md. Faiyaz Alam S/O Md. Mushtaque Ahmad @ Md. Mushtaque Alam R/O Village- Bagdulhan, Post Office- Hajipur, Police Station- Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali 3. Md. Sarfaraz Alam S/O Md. Mushtaque Ahmad @ Md. Mushtaque Alam R/O Village- Bagdulhan, Post Office- Hajipur, Police Station- Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali

¶4

.... .... Appellant/s Versus Munni Devi widow of Late Md. Usmani Khan R/O Mohalla- Golakhpur, Opposite Law College, Post Office- Mahendru, Police Station- Pirbahore, District- Patna, At Present Residing in Village- Bagdulhan, Post OfficeHajipur, Police Station- Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s

¶6

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Najmul Hoda, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shraven Kumar, Sr. Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶7

9 15-07-2013 Heard Mr. Najmul Hoda, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shraven Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the sole respondent. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.1.2012 passed in Title Suit No. 241 of 2011 whereby the learned Sub Judge-I, Hajipur has been pleased to reject the application filed by the appellants as plaintiffs in the Court below under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, praying for temporary injunction against the defendant from alienating any part of the suit property.

¶8

Patna High Court MA No.158 of 2012 (9) dt.15-07-2013

¶9

2 / 3

¶10

Facts of the matter leading to the present appeal in brief is that the suit in question was filed for declaration of title over property described in Schedule I and II and for recovery of possession of the property which also consists of a dwelling house, described in Schedule III which is part of Schedule II together with arrears of rent. It is the case of the plaintiff that the sole defendant is a tenant in Schedule-III property which has been sub let by her. The defendant is also charged for non payment of rent. On the other hand it is the contention of the sole defendant that she happens to be the widow of the deceased son of the plaintiff No.1 namely; Md. Imteyaz Alam and the property was purchased in his name by his grand father and which property had devolved upon the defendant under the sale deed executed by the said Md. Imteyaz Alam on 2.3.2009 after the Nikahnama with the defendant on 1.3.2009. It is not in dispute that Md. Imteyaz Alam having suffered an accident on 7.3.2009 died during the course of the treatment. The suit in question was filed with the relief as set out hereinabove. The application in question was filed on 30.5.2011 seeking to injunct the sole defendant from alienating any part of the property.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the materials on record.

¶12

The order impugned is self explanatory and the Court below having perused the documents led by the said defendant to contest the prayer for injunction, has rejected the prayer.

¶13

Patna High Court MA No.158 of 2012 (9) dt.15-07-2013

¶14

3 / 3

¶15

Mr. Hoda appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant should not be allowed to enter into any sale transactions in respect of the suit property especially on which she is having possession, during the pendency of the suit, since it would cause prejudice to the case of the plaintiff.

¶16

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo as regarding their respective possession over the suit property until the disposal of the suit.

¶17

It goes without saying that none of the parties to the suit shall enter into sale transaction in respect of any of the suit property without seeking prior permission of the trial Court.

¶18

With the observation aforementioned this appeal stands disposed

¶19

of.

¶20

Considering the nature of contest, the trial Court would be well advised to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

¶21

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶22

Bibhash/-

Md. Mushtaque Ahmad @ Md. Must v. Munni Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mushtaque Ahmad @ Md. Must v. Munni Devi

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

Mitra Vs Mrinmay Kumar Mitra and Ors.

Phulpati Devi and Ors. Vs The Union Of India

Most. Meena Devi and Ors. Vs Sri Ajay Kumar Sah

Bank of India and Ors. Vs M/S Banawar Agro Works P Ltd.

Dhananjay Kumar and Anr. Vs Parmanand Das @ Parmanand Sindhi

Shanti Devi Vs Unitee India Insurance Compnay and Anr.