Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN
Radhey Lal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Sunder Gupta Alias Ganesh Prasad Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Jain, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 CPC against the impugned order dated 29.8.2025 passed by the court of Additional District Judge(FTC), Mahoba, in O.S. no. 3 of 2025 Radhey Lal Gupta vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta alias Ganesh Prasad Gupta and others, whereby plaintiffs interim injunction application no.6-C2 as well as, application no. 31-C2 for stopping construction on the disputed property, have been rejected.
Plaint case
2. The factual matrix is that the plaintiff filed O.S.no.157 of 2024, which was renumbered as 3 of 2025, with the averments that the disputed property is known as 'Shanker Godam', which is situated in Mohalla Chajmanpura, Mahoba, which was purchased from the income of the HUF of ''Kashi Prasad Gaya Prasad'', hereinafter referred to as the 'firm', in the name of its partner Seth Gaya Prasad, through registered sale deed executed on 31.8.1943. It was further averred that at that time, the partners of the above firm were Deokinandan,Gaya Prasad, Ram Nath, Ramcharan and Bhavanideen. It was further averred that whatever property was purchased, it was from the income of the above firm.
The court affirmed that the burden of proving joint family ownership lies with the claimant, and failure to provide sufficient evidence will lead to dismissal of their claims.
(1) Interlocutory injunction—Appellate Court can interfere with order of trial court when it is found that discretion has been exercised by trial Court arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or wh....
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of such orders.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable when the defendant disputes title, necessitating a comprehensive suit for declaration and partition.
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging ancestral or joint property, and without evidence to support the claim, the Courts may reject the suit.
Ownership of property by female Hindus is absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of financing sources, and establishing adverse possession requires clear evidence of host....
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
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
