Dismissed

Piyush Meena S/O Shri Damodar Meena v. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma

Rajasthan HC14 Oct 2019CW/13684/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging orders that restrained the petitioner from interfering in the respondent's possession of a property, noting the respondent had a prior registered sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any specific relief granted to the petitioner.

Piyush Meena S/O Shri Damodar Meena Vs Rameshwar Prasad… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13684/2019

¶3

Piyush Meena S/o Shri Damodar Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 71/56, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur

¶4

----Petitioner/Defendant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rameshwar Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Moolchand Sharma, By Caste Bagra, R/o Badwali Dhani, Village Manoharpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

¶7

----Respondent/Plaintiff

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Kumawat

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

14/10/2019

¶12

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 19.06.2019 and 29.05.2019.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has erred in restraining the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the plot-inquestion. Learned counsel has submitted that, infact, the petitioner is in possession of the plot-in-question and has taken loan on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour. Petitioner has also got water connection in his name.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has opposed the petition and has submitted that Ganga Devi was the owner of the plot-in-question and she had executed registered sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 31.03.2010, whereas, the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-13684/2019]

¶17

petitioner had allegedly purchased the plot-in-question vide sale deed dated 12.10.2018 from the alleged attorney holder of owner Ganga Devi. Infact, Ganga Devi had never executed any power of attorney in favour of Divya Taneja.

¶18

In the present case, respondent/plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner with regard to the plot-in-question. Registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 31.03.2010 by the owner of the plot-in-question, whereas, the sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner on 12.10.2018 by the attorney holder of the owner.

¶19

Since, the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was executed prior in time by the owner of the plot-in-question, learned trial Court rightly restrained the petitioner/defendant from interfering in the possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the plot-in-question.

¶20

Orders passed by the courts below do not suffer from the vice of illegality and call for no interference.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

Sudha/69

Piyush Meena S/O Shri Damodar Meena v. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Meena S/O Shri Damodar Meena v. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma

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

Sumer Singh Vs Sohan Lal and Ors.

Rajnish Goyal S/O Shri Kailash Chand Goyal B/C Goyal Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh S/O Kaluram B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sardar Jaswant Singh Vs Addi District Judge and Ors.

Rajmal Vs Prahaant Chandrabhan Bhatt

Aamil Khan S/O Irfan Khan Vs Smt. Shanti Bai W/O Nand Kishore