Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3067
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Abhinava Upadhya, J.
Sashi Seth - Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Gupta& 8 Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 44487 of 2014
Decided On : 26-08-2014
For the Petitioner:- Lalit Kumar
For the Respondent:- Randhir Singh
Validity of sale deed and the court's discretion to direct the lower court to proceed with the suit without unnecessary adjournments.
Headnote:
Interim Injunction - Property Rights - The court rejected the interim injunction granted by the trial court, finding that the petitioner's sale deed was not valid. The court directed the lower court to proceed with the suit without unnecessary adjournments and restrained both parties from alienating the property until the final decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming her right and title over a property based on a sale deed executed by her husband, who was the power of attorney holder of the original owner. The appellate court rejected the interim injunction granted by the trial court, finding the petitioner's sale deed not valid.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the lower court to proceed with the suit without unnecessary adjournments and restrained both parties from alienating the property until the final decision.
Issues: Validity of the petitioner's sale deed, rejection of interim injunction, and the direction to proceed with the suit without unnecessary adjournments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner's sale deed was not valid and directed the lower court to proceed with the suit without unnecessary adjournments.
Final Decision: The writ petition was finally disposed of, and the parties were restrained from alienating the property until the final decision of the suit.
Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Randhir Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come up to this Court against the order of the appellate Court by which the interim injunction granted by the trial Court has been rejected.
3. The Petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming her right and title over the property in question by virtue of a sale deed executed by power of attorney holder of one Ali Jaan in her favour. The holder of the power of attorney of Ali Jaan is husband of the petitioner. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner had executed other sale deed in favour of the respondents. Petitioner has also filed a suit being Suit No.343 of 2014 for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant, which is pending. However, it is claimed that another suit for cancellation of sale deed in favour of the petitioner has been filed and the sale deed is registered sale deed, therefore, the petitioner has a valid right over the property in question.
4. The appellate Court at this stage has recorded a finding that the sale deed of the petitioner is not a valid sale deed. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner such a ground cannot be taken at the interim stage as has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court reported in (1999) 5 SCC 222 ( AIR 1999 SC 2171 ) Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and others vs. Kanhaiya Lokram Hemdev and others.
5. According to the learned Counsel for the parties, suit is at the final stage. As such, in my view no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending, as a direction can be issued to the Court below to proceed with the suit in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and till final decision of the suit or till any further order that may be passed in the suit, parties of the suit are restrained from alienating the suit property.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
