High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Hari Singh Yadav v. Additional District Judge Vth Ghaziabad And Others - WRIT - C No. 6807 of 2006  RD-AH 2591 (2 February 2006)
Court No. 23
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6807 of 2006
Hari Singh Yadav Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge, Vth, Ghaziabad & others
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the appellate court is under challenge in this petition, whereby the court below has allowed the appeal of the respondents and after setting aside the order of the trial court, has granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff respondents directing the petitioner defendant not to interfere in the plaintiffs' possession over the disputed house.
The plaintiffs came with a case before the trial court that they being the owner and in possession of the disputed house are in occupation over the same and it may not be disturbed and relief for permanent injunction be granted. Along with suit an application for temporary injunction was also moved. The defendant petitioner thereafter contested this prayer for temporary injunction and filed his counter affidavit stating that the house in question is a property belonging to him and the plaintiffs cannot get a decree for permanent injunction in respect thereto. The defendant petitioner also filed a sale deed in support of ownership of that house.
Though, the trial court has refused the prayer for temporary injunction, after hearing the parties in appeal, the court below has found merits in the claim of the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction and accordingly his application with that prayer was allowed. The Appellate Court, after having scrutinized the entire material available on record including the sale deed filed by the petitioner defendant, found that the property in dispute has definitely not the same boundaries, which have been described in the sale deed dated 24.2.1983. In that view of the matter when the appellate court found that the possession of the plaintiff is continuing over the house in question, it held that the plaintiff has prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and accordingly, his eviction or disturbance of possession has been stopped.
From the aforesaid findings recorded by the appellate court, it does not appear that it has any legal or procedural flaw to call for interference in the same. The court below has not found the property enumerated in the sale deed and the property in suit being one and the same and as such the temporary injunction was granted by it.
I do not find any merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.