Madhya Pradesh High Court
Trilok Chokse vs Suresh on 27 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2104
1 MP-204-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 27 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 204 of 2025
TRILOK CHOKSE
Versus
SURESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for respondents.
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below whereby his application for issuance of temporary injunction has been rejected.
2. As per the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit plot. However, the defendant No.1 is attempting to alienate the same. On such contentions he has instituted a civil suit before the trial Court. Along with the same he also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuance of temporary injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property. The application was contested by defendant No.1 who claimed title in the suit plot in himself. The application has been rejected by the Courts below by recording a finding to the effect that recording of name of plaintiff with the Gram Panchayat has been shown to be fraudulent hence no temporary injunction can be issued in his favour.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 29-01-2025 14:26:39 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2104 2 MP-204-2025 plaintiff and have perused the record.
4. For the purpose of seeking temporary injunction in his favour the plaintiff has to prove his own case and he cannot rely upon any weakness of the defendant. The plaintiff has not stated that he has acquired title to the suit plot on the basis of any testamentary document having been executed in his favour or on the basis of being the owner thereof in any manner. The only averment made by him to claim title is on the basis of payment of property tax with Nagar Palika and being mutated in its record. It is trite law that mere mutation or payment of tax is wholly incapable of conferring title. In any case defendant No.1 has obtained information from the Gram Panchayat under the Right to Information Act wherein it has been stated that no mutation in name of plaintiff has ever been affected by the Gram Panchayat and no receipt as regards payment of property tax has been issued in his favour. Thus, the documents on the basis of which plaintiff is claiming title are very much disputed and, in any case, cannot be regarded as evidence of title.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the Courts below have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders rejecting plaintiff's application for issuance of temporary injunction. The orders are hence affirmed, as a result of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 29-01-2025 14:26:39