High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Anil Kumar Kedia & Others v. International Society For Krishna Consciousness - WRIT - C No. 36105 of 2007  RD-AH 14201 (18 August 2007)
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.
Heard Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and S/Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents.
A suit for injunction was filed by the petitioners against the respondents. The petitioners' case is that they were the owner of a plot of Khasra No. 168 measuring 1.25 acres out of which area .90 decimal was sold by the petitioners to the respondents and the petitioners continued to remain the owner of the balance .35 decimal and the respondents are trying to interfere with the petitioners' possession over the .35 decimal. The injunction application was rejected by the trial court. The appeal against that order has also been dismissed. It was submitted by the petitioners' counsel that in the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents the eastern boundary is shown to be that of the petitioners and the respondents are bound by the said recital in the sale deed to which they were parties and consequently they cannot be allowed to contend that the petitioners are not owner of the adjoining land in dispute. According to the respondents the petitioners were not the owners of the disputed land nor were they in possession and the respondents have purchased it from Gurudesh Sharma the recorded tenant of the plot. The copy of the khatauni has not been filed by the petitioners to show that the area of plot no.168 in their name was 1.25 decimal. An incorrect recital in the boundary is not conclusive and can be explained away because a recital about ownership of land not being sold may be made in the deed on the representation of the vendor without its correctness being examined by the purchaser as the recital does not relate to the title of the land being sold. The finding is that the petitioners have not been able to establish their possession. The courts below have considered the Amin's report and other material. The finding is one of fact. In the circumstances both the courts below appear to have rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction. The order does not suffer from any error, which may call for interference. Dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.