Back
2015 Supreme(UK) 404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. DHYANI, J.
Neeraj Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
Ganesh Maurya - Respondent
Appeal from Order No. 346 of 2015
Decided On : 27-07-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate.
The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for obtaining an interim injunction, and there is a need for full disclosure of facts in seeking equitable relief.
Headnote:
Interim Injunction - Disputed Property Ownership - Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. - Ashwinkumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel (1999) 3 SCC 161, Nauman Ahmad & others v. Mohd. Harun & another, 2014 (2) U.D. 629, Julien Educational Trust v. Sourendra Kumar Roy & others, (2010) 1 SCC 379, Kashi Math Samsthan & another v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & another, AIR 2010 SC 296, Triumphant Institute of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Aspiring Mind Assessment Pvt. Ltd. & others, 2014 (3) CivCC 734 (Delhi), D. Albert v. Lalitha & others, AIR 1989 Madras 73
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with a piece of land claimed by both parties based on conflicting sale-deeds. The trial court directed both parties to maintain status-quo over the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ownership and possession of both parties were suspicious and directed them to maintain status-quo over the disputed property.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court was justified in directing the parties to maintain status-quo and not to create any third party interest in a situation where the ownership and possession were in dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of interim injunction and emphasized the need for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case for obtaining an injunction. The court also highlighted the importance of full disclosure of facts and the equitable relief governed by well-known principles.
Final Decision: The Appeal from Order was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the court below for decision according to law.
U.C. DHYANI, J.
1. By means of present Appeal from Order (A.O.) under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. read with Section 104 C.P.C., the defendant/appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.05.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) 3rd, Dehradun in O.S. no. 188 of 2015, Ganesh Maurya v. Neeraj Yadav, whereby the trial court disposed of the interim injunction application of the respondent and directed both the parties to maintain status-quo over the suit property and not to create third party interest over the property in dispute.
2. The plaintiff (respondent herein) moved an application (paper no. 6C) before the court below with the prayer to direct the defendant (appellant herein) to restrain from interfering in the suit property, which is a piece of land. The defendant (appellant) contested the said application. There are two sale-deeds in respect of the property in question, one is in favour of the plaintiff and another is in favour of the defendant. Both sale-deeds were executed by one Mahima Nand Sundriyal. After considering the rival contentions, learned court below expressed its inability to find out as to which of the sale-deed executed by Mahima Nand Sundriyal is genuine and which of the sale-deed is false and fabricated. The court below came to a conclusion that the ownership as well as the possession of both the parties seems to be suspicious. Learned court below, therefore, directed the parties to maintain status-quo over the suit property and not to create any third party interest in respect of the said property during the pendency of the suit.
3. Aggrieved against the same, present A.O. has been filed by the defendant-appellant.
4. It is such a case in which both the plaintiff and the defendant claimed their ownership and possession on the basis of two different sale-deeds executed by one Mahima Nand Sundriyal. Surprisingly, both the sale-deeds are allegedly executed by Mahima Nand Sundriyal. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff's brother is a witness to the sale-deed executed in favour of the defendant. It is the observation of the trial court that the question as to whether Mahima Nand Sundriyal has, in fact, executed both the sale-deeds or whether someone impersonated Mahima Nand Sundriyal and executed a false and fabricated sale-deed shall be decided during the course of final hearing. Admittedly, none of the parties claiming their ownership and possession has been recorded in the revenue records. The plaintiff's (respondent's) application for mutation has been dismissed in default and as per the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, the restoration application is pending.
5. The question is - whether the trial court was justified in directing the parties to maintain status-quo and not to create any third party interest in such a situation?
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwinkumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel, (1999) 3 SCC 161, wherein it was held:
“13. Therefore, without going into the validity of the agreements executed by the owners in favour of the plaintiff or defendants 15 and 28, or the validity of the sale deed executed by defendants 15 and 28, we are of the view that the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The trial Court has given several reasons for the grant of temporary injunction and, in our view, the two reasons given by the High Court were, on the facts, not sufficient to warrant a remand.
14. It is, however, made clear that the findings relating to the rights of the parties, the title to the property or as to possession as given by the trial Court and as accepted by us are all tentative and will be subject to findings that may be arrived at by the trial Court in the suit after the evidence is led. In addition to the injunction granted by the trial Court, we direct the plaintiff to mainta
