Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwan Singh vs Subhashchand on 16 July, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P.No. 3161/2018
(Bhagwan Singh Vs. Subhash Chand)
Gwalior, dated:16.07.2018
Shri S.S. Rajpoot, Advocate for the petitioners.
The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under
Article 227 of the Constitution to assail the appellate and as well
as the order of the trial Court declining the prayer for temporary
injunction made by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of
plaintiff's ownership with corresponding prayer for decree of
permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them
from interfering with possession of plaintiff over the suit
property. The trial Court allowing temporary injunction under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC noticed that plaintiff claimed to be
owner of the suit property on the strength of sale deed dated
19.06.2014 whereafter they alleged to be in peaceful
possession of the suit property since 2014 and since the
defendants were trying to unlawfully dispossess them, the suit in
question was filed by the plaintiff respondent by submitting
written statement and reply to the temporary injunction application that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and in fact the defendants claimed possession over the suit property.
Defendants based their denial on the allegation that suit property belongs to Hindu-Undivided Family. The trial Court noticed that though oral evidence was adduced in respect of the claim of defendants to be in possession of the suit property, but no authentic document in that regard was brought forth.
The trial Court further recorded the finding that the allegation of defendants that the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff and the consequential mutation being 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P.No. 3161/2018 (Bhagwan Singh Vs. Subhash Chand) unlawful are matters left to be decided after adducing of evidence. Thus, in this background, the trial Court found prima- facie case in favour of the plaintiff regarding ownership and possession and therefore temporary injunction was granted. The said finding was upheld by the appellate Court under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.
The view taken by the learned trial Judge and as well as the appellate Court seems to have been taken within the four corners of law circumscribed by the factual scenario prevailing in the case and therefore it cannot be said that either of the two Courts have exceeded any of the jurisdictional limits set by law.
Thus, this Court in the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution declines interference.
Consequently, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge sh/-
SEHAR HASEEN 2018.07.19 10:46:45 +05'30'