Disposed

Swami Shashwatanand v. Anil Kumar Ghosh and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC2 May 2013AO/395/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an interim order granting temporary injunction. High Court of Uttarakhand modified the order to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of the property while restraining creation of third-party interests until the suit's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Modified the interim order to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of the property; restrained parties from creating third-party interests.

Swami Shashwatanand Vs Anil Kumar Ghosh and Ors. — Property and Title | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Appeal From Order No. 395 of 2012

¶4

Swami Shashwatanand S/o Sri Ram Gopal R/o Param Saswat Geeta Dham Sapta Sarowar Road, Bhupatwala Hardwar District Hardwar

¶5

….....Defendant/Appellant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anil Kumar Ghosh

¶8

S/o Shri H.N. Ghosh R/o Jheel Road, New Land Kolcata (Wrongly described as Durga Badi Trust Sapat Rishi Marg Bhupatwala Hardwar

¶9

District Hardwar)

¶10

1. Smt. Maya Rai W/o Shri S.N.Rai R/o House No. 17 Jodhpur park Kolcata (Wrongly described as Durga Badi Trust Sapat Rishi Marg Bhupatwala Hardwar

¶11

District Hardwar)

¶12

1. Guru Krishna Dev Maharaj Ji Gaurdham Dugra Badi (Dharmshala) Trust through Trusti Sri Anil Kumar Ghosh R/o Jheel Road, New Land Kolcata (Wrongly described as Durga Badi Trust (Dharmshala) Trust C/o Trustee Sri Anil Kumar Ghosh at present Sapat Rishi Marg Bhupatwala Hardwar, District Hardwar

¶13

…............Plaintiffs Respondents

¶14

¶15

Sri Himanshu Majumdar

¶16

S/o Late Rasiklal Majumdar R/o 1/78 Vijaigarh Post Jadavpur University Kolcata

¶17

1. Smt. Anukana Rai

¶18

R/o E/439, S.P.D Block

¶19

Chiranjan Colony Kolkata

¶20

1. Sri Nirmalanshu Rai, Advocate,

¶21

High Court Promile Bhawan

¶22

Beligariya Kolkata

¶23

Sri Somitra Bhattacharya R/o C/o Narayan Niwas Novatoli P.O Daltanganj, District Palamau

¶24

Bihar

¶25

….....Defendant Proforma Respondents

¶26

Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the appellant. Shri Piyush Garg, Advocate, present for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Shri Nikhil Singhal, Advocate, present for respondent nos. 4 to 7.

¶27

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

(2) This appeal is directed against order dated 10.05.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hardwar, in Suit No. 52 of 2012, whereby said court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs (present respondent nos 1 to 3), restraining the defedant no.1 (present appellant) from demolition the

¶30

¶31

property in suit.

¶32

(3) This matter appears to have been heard at length on 03.09.2012, whereafter as an interim measure it was directed by this Court, on the appeal of the defendant no.1 (appellant), that the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the property and it was further directed that no third party interest shall be created in favour of any person.

¶33

(4) It appears that Suit No. 52 of 2012 was instituted by the trustees for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants stating that the defendant no.1 has no concern with the property in suit i.e. land purchased by Swami Gaur Mohan Majumdar @ Swami Gour Deb Maharaj Ji vide sale deed dated 06.07.1970 who created trust on 10.01.1994.

¶34

(5) On the other hand, defendant no.1 (present appellant) filed objections before the trial court against the application for temporary injunction and pleaded that though the property was

¶35

¶36

purchased by Swami Gaur Mohan Majumdar vide sale deed dated 06.07.1970, who created trust on 10.01.1994, but the defendant no.1 is in possession of the property after the trust was revoked by Swami Gaur Mohan Majumdar @ Swami Gour Deb Maharaj Ji, and he purchased the property through sale deed dated 28.02.2012.

¶37

(6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits, this Court is of the view that the interest of the parties would be protected best during the pendency of the suit, if they are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of the property, and they are restrained from creating any third party interest till the disposal of the suit.

¶38

(7) Therefore, the interim order passed by the trial court on 10.05.2012, in the suit is modified with the direction as above, regarding maintaining status quo by the parties in respect

¶39

¶40

of possession and nature of the property and restraining them from creating third party interest, till the disposal of the suit.

¶41

(8) Accordingly, with above observations this appeal stands disposed of.

¶42

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

¶43

Dt.02.05.2013

¶44

Swami Shashwatanand v. Anil Kumar Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Shashwatanand v. Anil Kumar Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pal Singh and Ors. Vs Karam Singh Negi and Ors.

Smt. Naseema Begum Vs Chote Ram

Shoorveer Singh Vs Hira Singh and Others

Munshi Mewa Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Narendra Mohan Nayal and Others

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri Balbir Singh and Another