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.

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. It was further averred that at that time the disputed property was lying in ruins, in Mohalla Kanoongoyan ,which is now known as Mohalla Chajmanpura. It was further averred that currently the disputed property is in the form of a ground in which an old temple of Lord Shanker, and a well is constructed.

3. It was further averred that since the sale deed of the disputed property was in the name of the father of defendant no.1, as such the defendant no.1 intends to sell the disputed property by misleading persons, whereas, the disputed property is the property of the above HUF. It was further averred that all the partners of the above firm have died and now their legal heirs are joint owners of the property, who intend to sell the property as per their individual wish.

4. It was further averred that the disputed property belongs to the above HUF, in which the plaintiff and defendants have got share, as such, it cannot be sold by a sole person. It was further averred that during the pendency of the suit the disputed property ''Shanker Godam''has been sold by defendant no.1 in an illegal manner to defendant No. 7 Mohammed Imtiyaz and defendant No. 8 Chetrapal Singh Yadav through separate sale deeds registered on 30.1.2025, on the basis of which no right title and interest is vested in the above purchasers.

5. It was further averred that the income tax assessment dated 26.7.1978 of the above firm filed by defendant no.1,discloses that the disputed property is of above HUF, and it also discloses the share of defendant no.1 in the property of the HUF as 20%,but still the defendant no.1 intends to sell the disputed property solely and usurp the consideration.

6. The plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs:-

(i) By decree of permanent injunction, the defendant no.1 be restrained from selling the disputed property known as Shanker Godam.

(ii) The registered sale deeds dated 30.1.2025 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no. 7 and 8 be cancelled and its information be sent to the concerned sub-registrar.

(iii) By decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the pendentelite purchasers defendant No. 7 and 8 , they be restrained from making any demolition, construction in the disputed property and also selling it.

Defendant's case

7. The defendant no.1 Shyam Sunder Gupta alias Ganesh Prasad Gupta submitted his written statement i