Allahabad High Court
Ram Singh vs Vijendra Singh And Others on 14 January, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 44 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23878 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ram Singh Respondent :- Vijendra Singh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- V.P. Rai Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner along with his real brother Som Pal Singh filed an Original Suit No. 377 of 2007. In the plaint it was alleged that a forged sale deed was got executed by impersonation, however, in the prayer only an injunction was sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the rights of the plaintiff. Along with the said suit an application for grant of a temporary injunction was also moved, the trial Court by means of order dated 18.1.2008 passed an injunction order restraining the defendants from taking forceful possession over the subject matter of the suit and also against causing damage to the trees standing on the land in question.
The said order dated 18.1.2008 was challenged by the defendants by preferring an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2008 before the District Judge, Moradabad. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 20th April 2009 and the earlier injunction order dated 18.1.2008 was set aside. Against the said order dated 20th April 2009 the present petition was filed.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the name of the petitioner continues in the revenue records and as such there existed a prima facie case for grant of injunction and the appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal ignoring the said fact. She further argues that the sale deed in question based upon which the defendants claimed to be the owners of the property was filed for the first time while filing the appeal and the appellate Court could not have taken cognizance of the same while allowing the appeal as has been done by the appellate Court.
The counsel for the respondents on the other hand argues that even the plaint discloses that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the sale deed and without challenging the sale deed, the suit was not maintainable. He further argues that the suit was not maintainable as the land in question is an agricultural land and as such no error can be pointed out in the appellate order.
A perusal of the plaint which is on record makes it clear that the sale deed has not been challenged before the trial Court and without there being any challenge to the sale deed no injunction could have been granted in favour of the plaintiff as it is well settled that no injunction can be granted against the true owner of the property. Thus, there is no error in the order impugned in the petition being the order passed by the appellate Court.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
However, as the suit was instituted in the year 2007, I consider it appropriate to direct the trial Court to hear and decide the Original Suit No. 377 of 2007 (Ram Singh Vs. Vijendra Singh and others) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 14.1.2020 Hasnain