The central legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's failure to prove his ownership share in the disputed land led to the dismissal of the suit for injunction against the defendant.

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—

This appeal, preferred under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Advocate) Rishikesh, in Original Suit No. 204 of 2008 whereby said Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plain#31;tiff for injunction against the respondent.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the Lower Court record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Ramesh Chand Aggarwal filed a Suit No. 204 of 2008 before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rishikesh, seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant for issuance of direction that she be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff over land in suit. It is pleaded in the plaint filed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff pur#31;chased land in suit vide sale-deed dated 2.4.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 6,72,000/-. It is further pleaded that amount of only Rs.50,000/- was contributed by his son Devendra Kumar Agarwal (since died) in the consideration paid to the seller. As such, the share of son of the plaintiff was only 6.7 %. The plain#31;tiff further pleaded that he is in possession of the land in suit. It is also pleaded that Devendra Kumar Agarwal, son of the plaintiff died on 31.10.2007. Defendant Hema Agarwal is widow of Devendra Kumar Agarwal. It is alleged in the plaint that after the death of the Devendra Kumar Agarwal, the defendant implicated the plaintiff in frivolous criminal pro#31;ceedings. It is further alleged that she wants to forcibly grab the land in suit.

4. The defendant contested the suit and filed her written statement. She admitted that the land in suit was purchased through the sale-deed dated 2.4.2002 and 6.5.2002, but as to the small contribution of her husband, she stated that her husband Devendra Kumar Agarwal was a Civil Engineer, and he was doing the business of building construction. It is further stated in the written statement that after 1994, when Devendra Kumar Agarwal took over the busi#31;ness, the plaintiff almost stopped doing business. It is also pleaded in the writ#31;ten statement that it was Devendra Kumar Agarwal, who used to earn and pay to his father Ramesh Chand Agarwal out of love and affection. It is also pleaded that in 1997 Ramesh Chand Agarwal left the house, and could be traced in the year 2000, whereafter, his wife Ramwati died, and the plaintiff started living in the house with one Junita Pradhan. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the defendant Hema Agarwal got married to Devendra Kumar Agarwal in April, 2001, and a son named Devansh born out of the wed#31;lock on 12.2.2002. It is admitted that on 31.10.2007, Devendra Kumar Agarwal died in Global Hospital, Hyderabad, due to cardiovascular attack. The defen#31;dant further pleaded that it was Devendra Kumar Agarwal, who got constructed the house over the part of the land in suit. It has been specifically pleaded that this suit is instituted by the plaintiff to deprive Master Devansh of his share after the death of his father. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the suit is barred by the Benami-Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is also pleaded that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11.of C.P.C., 1908.

5. On .the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Trial Court:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in suit, as alleged ?

(ii) Whether the defendant is attempting to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land ?

(iii) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C, 1908?

(iv) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ?

(v) Whether the suit is barred by Benami-Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, if so its effect?

6. After recording the evidence, and hearing the parties, the Trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document