Prima facie case is required to seek injunction, and a seller's lack of authority to execute a sale deed renders it void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The matter is heard on the admission.

2. Challenge is being made to the order dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tenth Additional Session Judge, Gwalior in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 129/2018, whereby the miscellaneous civil appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Fourteenth Civil Class-2, Gwalior has been set aside.

It is argued that the petitioners have filed a civil suit with respect to Plot No.. The plot was purchased by the plaintiffs/petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 17.12.2007 from Ashok Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Gwalior through its Vice-President Manoj Kisan and after purchasing the plot received the possession and NOC. It is argued that they have constructed the boundary wall and are using the plot for keeping Tractor etc. On 16.01.2017 the defendants no. 1 and 2 came to the plot and made a dispute with the plaintiffs husband Yadunath and on 17.01.2017, 8 to 10 persons came to the petitioners' plot and have quarrelled with the petitioner no. 1 and her son Pradeep. The matter was reported to the police authorities but when no response was filed and the civil suit for declaration and injunction was preferred alongwith the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.. The respondent no. 2 filed reply to the application that the plot in question A-76 has been allotted to Gwalior Vikash Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha on 05.02.2005 and there is no construction of the petitioners on the plot in question. The petitioners have drawn attention of this Court to the notice issued under Section 248 MPLRC for vacating the premises in question and removing encroachment of the petitioners, which goes to show that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question. It is argued that the petitioners are bonafide purchaser of the property in question as the same has been purchased vide registered sale deed dated 17.12.2007 from Ashok Grah Nirman Samiti i.e. Respondent no. 5. It is argued that the petitioners are poor lady and have purchased the plot in question from the respondent no. 5 vide registered sale deed dated 17.12.2007, they are the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and they are in possession of the plot more than 14 years then till the decision of the civil suit, status quo with respect to the property is directed to be maintained. It is argued that for consideration of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC prima facie the case is required to be seen. The petitioners are in possession of the property in question itself to show that they are having prima facie case in their favour. If the possession is not protected then the irreparable loss will be caused to them as they are bonafide purchaser of the property in question through registered sale deed from the respondent no. 5. It is pointed out that the respondent no. 4/Gwalior Vikash Grah Nirman Sahkari Maryadit Gwalior was registered in the year 2008 then how the plot could have been allotted to the Sanstha in the year 2005. The aforesaid aspect was not considered by both the Courts below. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order, and for maintaining status quo with respect to the property in question till disposal of civil suit.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3/GDA has supported the impugned order and has argued that there are concurrent findings of both the courts below against the petitioners as the petitioners have failed to prove prima facie case in their favour. The respondent no. 3, by filing a reply to the application, has contended that the plot was allotted to Ashok Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, who is the seller of the disputed plot, but subsequently the allotment was cancelled and the information was given to Ashok Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha. It is argued that once the allotment of plot in question to the respondent no. 5 was cancelled. He wa