Back
2023 Supreme(All) 1233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Saquibullah Khan and Another – Appellants
Versus
Vishwamitra Pachnanda and Another – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 2269 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anil Kumar Aditya
For the Respondent: Raghav Arora
The court upheld the principle that in cases of doubtful title, maintaining status quo pending suit is necessary to preserve the subject matter of the dispute.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1(r) - Suit property - 4/1486 - Summary: The court discussed the plaintiffs' claim to the suit property based on an unregistered will and an oral gift, and the defendants' challenge to the validity of these transactions. The court found the plaintiffs' title to be doubtful and upheld the trial court's order of maintaining status quo pending suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit property, claiming title based on an unregistered will and an oral gift. The trial court partly allowed the temporary injunction application, ordering parties to maintain status quo pending suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the plaintiffs' title to be doubtful and upheld the trial court's order of maintaining status quo pending suit.
Issues: Dispute over possession and title to the suit property based on an unregistered will and an oral gift.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the plaintiffs' title to be doubtful and upheld the trial court's order of maintaining status quo pending suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial of the suit was ordered to be expedited.
Key Points: - The court upheld maintaining status quo pending suit where title is doubtful. [p_?] - The plaintiffs claimed title based on an unregistered will and an oral gift; the court found the title doubtful and deemed the will/oral gift not satisfactorily proven. (!) (!) (!) - The appeal dismissed; trial of the suit to be expedited with framed issues within 15 days and two effective hearing dates per week; trial to conclude within six months. (!) (!) - The trial court had ordered status quo pending suit; the appellate court affirmed this order. (!) - No cross-appeal by defendants; appellate court did not interfere beyond affirming the impugned order. (!) - The suit concerns the half share of a property previously owned by Dharmpal Pachnanda and later transferred through various records; plaintiffs rely on oral gift and an unregistered will. (!) (!) (!) - The court emphasized that the burden to prove the unregistered will rests with the party asserting title (Mohd. Aslam and successors). (!) (!) - The court criticised the plaintiffs’ prima facie case as not firm; title considered far from established. (!) - The judgment notes multiple prior litigation and compromises affecting title but focuses on maintaining status quo and fast-tracking trial. (!) (!) (!)
What is the court's ruling on maintaining status quo pending suit in cases of doubtful title?
What issues pertain to the validity of title based on an unregistered will and an oral gift in the suit?
What directions were given to expedite trial and handle issues in the appeal?
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') is directed against an order of Mr. Mohd. Firoz, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Aligarh dated 30.09.2022, partly allowing the plaintiffs' temporary injunction application and ordering parties to maintain status quo pending suit with regard to the suit property as detailed at the foot of the plaint.
2. The plaintiff-appellants (for short, 'the plaintiffs') have moved this appeal because they think that their partial success before the learned Civil Judge is not commensurate to their case. They pray that modifying the order passed by the learned Civil Judge directing parties to maintain status quo, an interim injunction be issued to restrain the defendants, acting by themselves or through their agents from interfering in the plaintiffs' peaceful possession in the suit property. The plaintiffs, therefore, in substance seek an injunction to be granted in clearer terms than the order made by the learned Civil Judge.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal impel this Court to think that the plaintiffs' case prima facie stands not on very firm ground. The dispute involved in the suit is about the half part of a certain house, called Amar Bhawan, bearing No. 4/1486, situate at Medical Road, Dodhpur, Aligarh. The original owner of this property, long ago and before India was partitioned, was one Zahir Haider, who migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947. The property, therefore, vested in the custodian of evacuee and mutated as such in the records of the Aligarh Nagar Nigam, as the plaintiffs say, during the period 01.04.1955 to 31.03.1962. It was then assigned House No.1/36-AB. This Court would think, at that time, there would be no Nagar Nigam in the city of Aligarh, but a Municipality.
4. The custodian of evacuee property sold it in an auction to the late Amar Nath Pachnanda and declared him the purchaser of the aforesaid property w.e.f. 01.02.1957. The declaration was issued by the Managing Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, District Aligarh. A sale certificate was issued on 10.04.1958 and registered as Document No.922 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Aligarh on 14.04.1958. The name of the late Amar Nath Pachnanda was mutated in the House Tax Assessment Register for the period 01.04.1962 to 31.03.1975. The property aforesaid came to be inherited by Dharmpal Pachnanda, his son, by intestate succession. The name of Dharmpal Pachnanda was mutated in the municipal records for the period 01.04.1962 to 31.03.1975 by an order of the competent Authority of the Municipality dated 24.04.1970. The property then bore Premises No.3/60. It was subsequently changed to 4/717 in the House Tax Assessment Register for the period 01.04.1975 to 31.03.1987. It was lastly changed to 4/1486 in the House Tax Assessment Register, current from 01.04.1987. So much of the case is admitted to the two plaintiffs, Saquibullah Khan and Rehan Azim. The property, hereinabove described, with all its changing premises numbers shall hereinafter be called 'the suit property'.
5. It is the plaintiffs' case about their title and ownership that one Mohd. Aslam was the owner in possession of the suit property, on the basis of a will dated 08.02.1996, executed by Dharmpal Pachnanda in favour of Mohd. Aslam. Dharmpal Pachnanda is said to have expired on 24.11.1996 and Mohd. Aslam claims that succession opened out in his favour in terms of Pachnanda's will dated 08.02.1996. The will is an unregistered document. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs say that the will received affirmation because a decree dated 24.05.2019 was passed in Suit No.904 of 2018 between Mohd. Aslam and one Azad, besides another defendant to that suit. The suit was decided in terms of a compromise in favour of Mohd. Aslam.
6. It is also pleaded that prior to the said suit, Mohd. Azad had filed O.S. No.2193 of 2012, Mohd. Azad and others vs. Mohd. Aslam, seeking a mandatory injunction to di
