2026:CGHC:13722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by SHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date: MA No. 196 of 2025

2026.03.24

16:59:39 +0530 Durai Swamy S/o Late Ratna Swamy Aged About 73 Years Present R/o Village Kotni Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) Permanent R/o House No. 88/1 Kuntatrayavalam, Tehsil Annur, District- Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu) (Wrongly Mentioned As Durai Swami In Lower Court Cause Title ) (Flaintiff)

... Appellant versus

1 - Anita Devi W/o Satyabir Singh Rajput Aged About 54 Years R/o H.N. 08, Ward No. 37, Ganjpara, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.)

(Defendants)

2 - Sumit Kukreja S/o Chander J. Kukreja Aged About 30 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar, Behind Malwa Hotel Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) (Due To Inadvertence Fathers Name And Age Has Not Been Mentioned In Lower Court Cause Title)

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District - Durg (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Appellant : Shri Sandeep Patel, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2. : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board

23.03.2026

1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Seventh Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 32A/2025 (Durai Swamy v. Smt. Anita Devi and Others), whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking grant of ad-interim injunction.

2. (a) The Appellant/Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction, asserting his ownership and possession over the suit property. It was pleaded that in the year 2011, due to financial need, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell the suit property with Chander J. Kukreja, father of Defendant No.2, for a total consideration of ₹31,39,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of ₹4,00,000/- was paid in installments; however, thereafter no further payment was made. In May 2012, the said Chander J. Kukreja expressed his inability to complete the transaction, and consequently, the Plaintiff refunded the entire amount of ₹4,00,000/- to him.

(b) The Plaintiff, being a permanent resident of Tamil Nadu and having limited education, was induced to execute a Power of Attorney dated 14.05.2012 in favour of Defendant No.2 on the pretext that he would look after the property in the Plaintiff’s absence. The Plaintiff, being unaware of Hindi language and the contents of the document, executed the same in good faith. It was only in February 2025 that the Plaintiff came to know that Defendant No.2 had misused the said Power of Attorney and executed a sale deed dated 28.01.2025 in favour of Defendant No.1, Anita Devi, thereby illegally transferring the suit property.

3. (I) The defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and denied the contents of the said application. The defendants stated that the plaintiff had executed an agreement to sell dated

14.05.2012 in favour of defendant No. 2 with respect to the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 343 and 348, admeasuring 0.490 hectares, for a total consideration of ₹31,00,000/-, after receiving the entire sale consideration in cash in the presence of two witnesses. The said agreement, duly signed by the parties and witnesses, has been deliberately suppressed by the plaintiff. It is further averred that the plaintiff had handed over possession of the suit land to defendant No. 2 on the same day and also executed a registered power of attorney in his favour, which remained unchallenged for about 13 years. The plaintiff has not disputed the said power of attorney in the present suit.

(II) The defendants contend that no fraud or misrepresentation was committed; rather, the present su