IMPORTANT POINT
Question of title can be looked into in a suit for injunction unless same is very complicated – A person who is in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.—Heard Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2023 (Ajeet Awasthi v. Meera Awasti and others).

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 Ajeet instituted Original Suit No. 816 of 2020 (Ajeet Awasthi v. Meera Awasthi and others) in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, employees, representatives, family members from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the house in dispute (House No. N 638, S Block, Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur Nagar). The case set up by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in the plaint in brief is that the plaintiff purchased the land out of his own income in the name of his mother namely Meera Awasthi and thereafter constructed a house from his own funds being House No. N 638, S Block, Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and is living along with all his family members in the aforesaid house. It is further pleaded that subsequently, the defendant nos. 1 & 2 (parents of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1) under the influence of their other children started asking the plaintiff to vacate the accommodation and has also given threat to the plaintiff in case the plaintiff/respondent do not vacate the house in question, he will be thrown out from the premises in question and therefore, the present suit is instituted. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. The trial court i.e. Judge Small Causes, Kanpur Nagar by an ex-parte order dated 27.10.2020 restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over house in dispute and further directed them to maintain status quo. On an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent, paper no. 30Ga, the trial court appointed commissioner vide order dated 07.05.2022. Commissioner has submitted its report on 01.09.2022.

4. After service of notice, the petitioners/defendants appeared before the court below and filed their objections on 13.04.2022 being paper no. 26/27ga to the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner. The case set up by the defendants/petitioners is that the land in question is not purchased by the plaintiff out of his own funds and the house constructed thereupon is also not constructed by the plaintiff out of his own funds rather the same is constructed by defendant nos. 1 & 2 out of their own funds. However, in their objections, the defendant/petitioners have admitted that the plaintiff/respondent is residing in the house in question and has thrown out the defendant/petitioner from the property in question, other pleas were also taken.

5. The trial court by order dated 21.08.2023, rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the defendant/respondent no. 1 holding that there is no prima-facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The trial court has also held that an injunction cannot be granted merely on the basis of possession. Against the order dated 21.08.2023, defendant/respondent no. 1 preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.81/2023 which has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar by order dated 31.10.2023. The order dated 21.08.2023, passed by the trial court was set-aside by appellate court and appellate court also directed that both the parties will maintain status quo with respect to the house in question. Being aggrieved with the order dated 31.10.2023, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the defendants/petitioners.

6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land in question was