U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

Since identical issue of law is involved in the aforementioned writ petitions, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of aforesaid writ petitions, petitioner/plaintiff Sanjay Verma, seeks following reliefs, among others:

i) to quash the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by learned Addl. District Judge IV, Dehradun in M.C.A. no. 57 of 2014, Om Sai Infra Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and another vs Sanjay Verma and others as also in M.C.A. no. 115 of 2014, Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Sanjay Verma and others, and further to allow the temporary injunction filed by the petitioner / plaintiff and further directing the parties to maintain status quo over the property in question.

3. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, cancellation of sale deed and partition was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner against the defendants/respondents. An application for temporary injunction (paper no. 6C) was filed. The defendants/respondents filed objections (paper no. 58C2) against the same. The trial court after hearing both the parties and after considering the documents brought on record directed, vide order dated 30.05.2014, that the parties shall maintain status quo over the suit property. Aggrieved against the same, two misc. civil appeals were filed on behalf of the defendants/respondents. Learned IV Addl. District Judge, Dehradun, vide order dated 12.05.2015, allowed the misc. civil appeals and hence aforesaid writ petitions were filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.

4. According to the plaintiff/petitioner, plaintiff alongwith defendant nos. 3, 9 and predecessor of defendant nos. 4 to 7 purchased the property through sale deed dated 26.07.2011 pertaining to khasra no. 96, admeasuring 2267 sq. mts. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 purchased share of defendant nos. 3 to 7 from the co-owners of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 31.03.2012. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, permanent prohibitory injunction and alternatively for partition.

5. Defendant/respondent U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad did not file objections against the temporary injunction application. Objections were, however, filed by defendants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the same, enumerating the facts contained therein that the property in dispute has been purchased by them from the Awas Vikas Parishad, vide allotment orders dated 04.08.2012 and 08.08.2012 and, therefore, the sale deed executed on 26.07.2011 by Durga Prasad in favour of the plaintiff was a void document, inasmuch as Durga Prasad had no share left in the property, which he sold in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed executed in favour of the co-sharer of respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot be cancelled. It is further submitted that a co-sharer cannot seek injunction against another co-sharer.

6. The trial court, after giving elaborate reasons, found in internal page no. 5 of the judgment that the plaintiff is co-owner in possession of khasra no. 96, the land which was purchased by him from Durga Prasad. Learned trial court has indicated that so long as the sale deed is not cancelled and declared void-ab-initio, the same will remain in force. According to trial court, U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad is not in possession of the disputed property and, therefore, the situation warrants that the same should be preserved. The trial court, therefore, directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property.

7. The lower appellate court, relied upon the documents thus filed, and on the basis of statement of Durga Prasad observed that Durga Prasad had no authority to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Such an observation of lower appellate court finds support from the statement of Durga Prasad, who said that the plaintiff got the sale deed executed from him fraudulently. Dur