Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, ARUN KUMAR
Soni – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,J.
HON’BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to 7 to open the lock and restore the possession of the petitioner over her joint ancestral house.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State Government to take appropriate action against the Respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 for crushing the rule of law.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The case of the petitioner is that her father-in-law namely, Gelhari was a co-tenure holder of plot No.211, area 0.431 hectare. After his death, the names of the petitioner’s husband Shyamji, his brothers Premji, Ramji and Lalji and their mother Shivdhari Devi came to be recorded in the relevant khatauni in his place. During his lifetime, he constructed a two storied building over the said plot, having frontage of 20 feet on Bansi- Dandi Road and a width of 68 feet. On the ground floor, there are two shops, each having a width of 9 feet and a gallery of 6 feet width, which serves as an entrance to the remaining part of the house. In one of the s
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided list does not contain any language or references that suggest a negative treatment or judicial disapproval of these cases. Therefore, based on the available information, there are no cases identified as bad law.
Followed:
None explicitly indicated. The list does not specify that any case has been followed in subsequent rulings.
Distinguished:
No mention of cases being distinguished from others.
Criticized or Questioned:
No indication that any case has been criticized or questioned in subsequent judgments.
Reversed or Overruled:
The list does not contain any language suggesting reversal or overruling.
Abrogated:
There is no mention of any case being abrogated.
Note:
The list appears to be a single case citation with some additional commentary or notes, but it does not provide explicit treatment patterns or references to subsequent judicial treatment. The mention of case details, such as the case name, year, and court, does not imply treatment status.
The case law entry appears somewhat ambiguous and includes a mixture of language, including references to dates and possible annotations (e.g., "fnukad 05-02-2025" and "dks oknh ds izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr"). These could be notes or procedural references rather than judicial treatment, making the treatment status unclear.
Due to the lack of explicit treatment indicators, all cases in the list are categorized as uncertain regarding their judicial treatment.
Summary:
No cases in the provided list are identified as overruled, reversed, or bad law based on the available information.
The treatment of the case(s) remains unclear due to ambiguous language and lack of explicit judicial treatment indicators.
**Source :** Soni vs State of U.P. - Allahabad
The trial court's ex parte orders for possession were illegal, necessitating due process and rightful hearings before dispossessing parties from joint property.
The court ruled that administrative actions and orders from the trial court lacking due procedural safeguards lead to wrongful dispossession.
The court held that ex parte injunctions must adhere to proper legal process, emphasizing the necessity of hearing all parties and verifying possession before enforcement, thereby invalidating the ad....
Administrative authorities cannot interfere in civil property disputes pending before a competent court, and dispossession must follow due process of law.
The court established that inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC can be exercised to restore possession when parties have been wrongfully dispossessed, irrespective of the formal dismissal of ....
In property disputes, proof of ownership and lawful possession must be established; mere claims without supporting evidence lead to dismissal of injunction requests.
Execution courts can issue possession warrants under CPC for violations of permanent injunctions based on established possession findings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
