Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. MEHROTRA, J.
PHOOL SAKHI - Appellant
Versus
RAM SAKAL SINGH - Respondents
S. A. 1046 Of 1981
Decided On : 12/02/2005
Possession - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act - [Smt. Phool Sakhi Devi] - [Property Dispute] - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34] - The court discussed the ownership and possession of the disputed property, the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, and the legal principles governing injunctions.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction to protect her possession over a disputed property. The trial court found the defendant to be the owner of the property and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court confirmed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed property and was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. The court also held that possession alone does not entitle a person to an injunction against the true owner.
Issues: Ownership and possession of the disputed property, applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, entitlement to equitable relief of injunction based on possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff-appellant's failure to establish ownership and the defendant's proven ownership led to the dismissal of the suit. The court also emphasized that possession alone does not entitle a person to an injunction against the true owner.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) IT appears that the said Smt. Phool sakhi Devi (plaintiff-appellant) filed a Suit being suit No. 245 of 1970 against Ram Sakal singh (defendant-respondent no. 1) and harsh Narain (defendant-respondent no. 2)as defendants nos. 1 and 2, respectively in the said Suit.
( 3 ) IT may be mentioned at the outset that the said Smt. Phool Sakhi Devi (plaintiff-appellant)expired during the pendency of the present Second Appeal, and she was substituted by her heirs and legal representatives, namely, Smt. Sushila Srivastava and three others (plaintiffs-respondents nos. l/ 1,1/2,1/3 and respectively ).
( 4 ) IT is further relevant to note that the said Ram Sakal Singh (defendant-respondent no. 1)expired during the pendency of the litigation before the Courts below, and was substituted by Ram Naresh Singh, Ram chandra Singh, Gopal Singh, Onkar Singh and Musamma Jaddo Devi (defendants-respondents nos. 1/1, , 1/3, and 1/5, respectively in the present Second Appeal ).
( 5 ) IT is further pertinent to note that the said Harsh Narain (defendant-respondent no. 2 in the present Second Appeal) expired during the pendency of the present Second appeal, and was deleted from the array of parties by the order of the Court dated 26-10-2004.
( 6 ) IT may be further noted that the said ram Naresh Singh (defendant-respondent no. 1/1) expired during the pendency of the present Second Appeal, and his heir and legal representative Smt. Maheshra was substituted as the defendant-respondent no. 1/1/1.
( 7 ) FURTHER, Smt. Jaddo Devi (defendant-respondent no. 1/5) also expired during the pendency of the present Second Appeal and a note was made that her heirs and legal representatives were already on record as the defendants-respondents nos. 1 /1 /1 /, , 1/3 and.
( 8 ) FOR convenience, the said Smt. Phool sakhi Devi has hereinafter been also referred to as the "plaintiff-appellant" and the said ram Sakal Singh has hereinafter been also referred to as the "defendant-respondent no. 1".
( 9 ) THE said Suit was filed by the said Smt. Phool Sakhi Devi as plaintiff for permanent injunction directing the defendants in the said Suit not to interfere with the plaintiffs possession over the disputed property, which was an Ahata, and for restraining the defendants in the said Suit from making any constructions, alteration or other changes in the Suit property.
( 10 ) IT was, interalla, alleged in the plaint that the Smt. Phool Sakhi Devi (plaintiff-appellant) was the owner of the property marked by digits 1,2,5,6 in the plaint map, and the Suit property, i. e. , Ahata, shown by the digits 3,4,5,6, was a part of the said property of the plaintiff-appellant; and that the entire property (land) was acquired by her father-in-law, Ram Iqbal Lal about 50 years back, and a residential house was constructed by him over the portion 1,2,3,4 and the portion 3,4,5,6 was left as Ahata; and that a well and a latrine was constructed in the said Ahata and a palani was also fixed therein; and that some trees were also planted in the said land (Ahata); and that the said Smt. Phool Sakhi Devi (plaintiff-appellant) was in possession of the disputed ahata since the time of her father-in-law; and that the defendants in the said Suit wanted to take forcible possession of the said land; and that the defendants in the said suit had no right or titled to the land in Suit; and that on 1-8-1970 the defendants in the said Suit tried to demolish the eastern boundary wall of the Ahata but due to the intervention of the police, the defendants in the said Suit failed in their design.
( 11 ) THE said Ram Singh (defendant-respondent no. 1)filed Written Stat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
