Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Ram Babu Dubey – Appellant
Versus
Sankalp Mishra And Others - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 395 Of 2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shyam Mohan Pradhan, Lakshmi Kant Tripathi, Pragya.
For the Respondents: Shailendra Singh Rajawat.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of privity of contract, the requirement of a deed of conveyance for transfer of immovable property, and the Trial Court's discretion in granting or refusing temporary injunction based on material evidence and settled legal principles.

Headnote:
Temporary Injunction - Property Dispute - CPC Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 151 - [Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, Section 151 CPC] - The court discussed the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC in a property dispute case. The court referred to the legal provisions and principles related to the transfer of immovable property by way of sale, the requirement of a deed of conveyance, and the significance of registered documents in establishing rights over the property. The court emphasized the importance of privity of contract and the discretion of the Trial Court in granting or refusing temporary injunction based on material evidence and settled legal principles.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a defendant in a property dispute suit, appealed against the order granting temporary injunction to the plaintiffs-respondents. The dispute revolved around the ownership and possession of Plot No. 96 based on a registered sale deed and an unregistered sale letter.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application for temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs-respondents based on the material evidence and legal principles related to property rights and temporary injunctions.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the registered sale deed, the significance of the unregistered sale letter, the boundaries of the disputed plot, and the discretion of the Trial Court in granting temporary injunction based on the available evidence and legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of privity of contract, the requirement of a deed of conveyance for transfer of immovable property, and the Trial Court's discretion in granting or refusing temporary injunction based on objective consideration of material and settled legal principles.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's decision to grant temporary injunction to the plaintiffs-respondents. The Trial Court was expected to conclude the proceedings promptly.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pritish Kumar, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and filed Vakatalatnama, which is taken on record and Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the Caveator.

2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are proforma parties, as such, considering the order proposed to be passed at this stage of admission notice to respondent No.3 and 4 is dispensed with.

3. This appeal has been filed by defendant in suit.

4. Present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC assailing the order dated 13.09.2022 passed on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC bearing Application No.C-6 preferred in Regular Suit No.451 of 2019, CNR No. UPLKO5000851-2019 (Sankalp Mishra & Another vs. Ram Babu Dubey & Others) by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow.

5. It is stated that after presenting the plaint, the suit was registered as Regular Suit No. 451 of 2009 and the notice was issued to the defendants. On coming to know about the pendency of the suit the defendant-appellant appeared and filed his written statements as also the objection to the application for temporary injunction preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.

6. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents before the Trial Court is based upon the registered sale deed of Plot No.96 situated over Khasra No. 315 executed on 28.10.1983 having area 1800 Sqr Feet at Ravindra Garden, Aliganj, Lucknow.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of objection as also the written statement filed by the present appellant, the case of the appellant in brief is based upon sale letter dated 10.03.1983, which is unregistered. In the objection defendant also stated that the person who executed the sale deed in favour plaintiffs-respondents was not having any authority/right to execute the sale deed, as such, plaintiffs-respondents have no right or title in regard to property in suit.

8. In addition, the case of the present appellant before the Trial Court is to the effect that he is in possession of Plot No. 97 and not in possession of Plot No. 96 on which plaintiffs-respondents are claiming their rights. The boundaries of the plot in dispute in fact the boundaries indicated in the unregistered sale letter dated 10.03.1983 in favour of the defendant-appellant.

9. Based upon the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court committed error of fact and law both in allowing the application for temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, as such, the interference of this Court in the order under appeal is required.

10. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents in relation to plot in issue i.e. Plot No. 96, based upon the registered document i.e. sale deed executed on 20.10.1983, would prevail over the rights of the defendant-appellant which are based upon unregistered document that too of Plot No 97. Moreover, based upon the unregistered sale letter no claim is entertainable nor maintainable.

11. It is also stated that prior to passing of the order impugned herein, the Trial Court directed an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report. In compliance of the order of the Trial Court, the Advocate Commissioner submitted his report. This report shows the boundaries of property in issue on which, plaintiffs-respondents are claiming their rights under the sale deed, are correct. As such, the Trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application for temporary injunction.

12. In support of his submission, at this stage, Sri Pritish Kumar, Advocate placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp And Industries Private Ltd (2) Through Director vs. State of Harayana And Another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656. The relevant para 18 of the same is as under:-

"18.