Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Smt. Mamta - Appellant
Versus
Mukhya Nagar Ayukt and Another - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 26 Of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022
mandatory injunction - suit property - Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim for mandatory injunction for ownership and possession of the suit property, the bar under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership and possession, and the suit was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of a property through an agreement to sell and subsequent sale deed. The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim and asserted their own ownership based on a prior sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership and possession of the property. The suit was dismissed based on the findings that the plaintiff's sale deed was subsequent to the defendant's, and the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of possession.
Issues: Ownership and possession of the property, bar under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, undervaluation of the suit, insufficiency of court fee, and applicability of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership and possession, and the suit was dismissed. The court also found that the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC.
Key Points: - The court dismissed the suit for mandatory injunction after finding the plaintiff failed to establish ownership and possession of the suit property. (!) (!) - The suit involved a claim of ownership and possession based on an agreement to sell and a sale deed, with the defendant's earlier sale deed (14.02.2003) found to be prior in time. (!) (!) (!) - The court held the suit was not maintainable as framed, given the title dispute and lack of proper relief (cancellation of prior sale deed) rather than a mere mandatory injunction against the Municipal Corporation. (!) - The appellate court affirmed dismissal, and the High Court dismissed the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC. (!) (!) - The court found the plaintiff’s possession evidence inadequate and noted the agreement expressly stated possession had not been delivered. (!) (!) - The defendants argued the plaintiff’s name mutation in tax records did not bind the corporation or confer title, and the corporation was not a proper party to grant relief. (!) (!) - The court concluded no substantial question of law arose for consideration on appeal. (!)
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for mandatory injunction.
2. The plaintiff's case is that she is owner in possession of House No. 1/1232, Kundan Nagar, Chavni, District Aligarh. The details of the aforesaid house/premises are given at the foot of the plaint giving rise to the suit. The aforesaid property is hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'. It is pleaded that the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell relating to the suit property on 19.06.1998. It was admitted to registration on 18.08.1998. The vendor by the agreement aforesaid (for short, 'the suit agreement') covenanted to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,000/-.
3. It is averred that contemporaneous to the agreement, the entire contracted sale consideration of Rs.35,000/-was paid. It is also averred that actual and physical possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff. The best that the Court may make out from the pleadings is that the plaintiff claims delivery of possession at the time of registration of the suit agreement. The case of the plaintiff further pleaded is that the suit property was a plot of land, whereupon the plaintiff raised a kachchi boundary wall and constructed one kachcha room. She set up her living there in the year 2000. The suit property was assessed to house tax and water tax by the defendant first set, who are the Nagar Nigam of Aligarh. A receipt for the house tax and water tax paid was issued to the plaintiff on 14.10.2000, bearing receipt No.7041. The receipt shows that a sum of Rs.1410 was paid to the Nagar Nigam. It is also the plaintiff's case that electricity and telephone connection were installed in her name on the suit property. She also holds a ration card in her name bearing the address of the suit property.
4. It is then said that on 17.01.2004, the plaintiff went over to the office of the defendant first set, the Municipal Corporation in order to deposit her house tax and water tax for the year 2004, but the Corporation refused to accept the same. The plaintiff claims to have addressed a complaint to the Corporation. On 28.01.2004, the Corporation issued a notice to the plaintiff asking her to show her title papers relating to the suit property. The plaintiff asserts that she submitted all documents with the Corporation/ defendant first set. She also asserts that notice dated 28.01.2004 was replied to on 11.02.2004.
5. The plaintiff goes on to say that the defendant second set served a legal notice dated 03.02.2004 claiming ownership of the suit property and asking the plaintiff to vacate the same. The defendant second set also demanded rent from the plaintiff. The notice dated 03.02.2004 was answered by the plaintiff vide her reply dated 19.02.2004, refuting all claims to ownership of the suit property by the defendant second set. It is then asserted that the defendant first set/ the Corporation were adamant not to register the plaintiff's name. Accordingly, the plaintiff got a registered sale deed relating to the suit property executed on 20.02.2004, removing all doubts if at all about her title to the suit property. The Corporation, however, persisted in their refusal to record the plaintiff's name despite the sale deed dated 20.02.2004 produced before them. Instead, the plaintiff received a notice from the Corporation dated 28.07.2004 asking to get her title decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The plaintiff says that in order to establish her ownership to the suit property, she has instituted the present suit. She asserts that she has done so because the defendant second set has thrown a cloud of doubt over her title. Accordingly, the plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Aligarh bearing O.S. No.961 of 2004. It would be apposite to extract the relief that the plaintiff claimed in the suit when confronted about her title by defendant no.1 at the instance
AI
Failure to establish ownership and possession of the property led to the dismissal of the suit.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
The plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
(1) Injunction is a consequential relief – In a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a furth....
Suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction is not maintainable and the First Appellate Court could not have decreed the suit of the plaintiff, when the defendants apart from denying the title and poss....
A declaration of property ownership requires establishing possession; without it, claims regarding related deeds are insufficient.
The court upheld that a mere sale agreement without a registered deed does not confer title, and continuous possession under such agreement is considered permissive, not adverse.
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
