High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ramwanti Devi And Others v. Janpad Nyaydhish And Others - WRIT - C No. 8565 of 2007  RD-AH 2659 (19 February 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8565 of 2007
Ramwanti Devi and others
District Judge and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners.
Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under :
Plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendants-respondents from interfering in peaceful possession over the property in dispute and further to restrain them from cutting or destroying away the standing crops. Suit was filed on the ground that one Ram Anuj was the recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute and plaintiffs-petitioners no. 1 and 2 are daughters and plaintiffs-petitioners no. 3 and 4 are sons of pre-deceased daughter. On death of Ram Anuj, land in dispute was inherited by them and they are Bhumidhar in possession over the same. It was further pleaded that defendant no. 3, Prabhawati Devi, was not legally wedded wife of Ram Anuj but concubine of Ram Anuj. She had two daughters, Durgawati and Kalawati and they were wrongly shown as daughters of Ram Anuj. Defendant-respondent no. 2 wrongly and illegally executed sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of her son-in-law, defendants-respondents no. 3 and 4 who executed sale deed of the same in favour of respondent no. 7. Suit was contested by defendant-respondent no. 7 on the ground that sale deed was validly executed in her favour and ever since thereafter her name has been recorded in the revenue record and she is in possession over the same.
Trial court on analysing documentary evidence brought on record has recorded categorical finding that in the Khatauni, name of defendant-respondent no. 2 widow of Ram Anuj was recorded as Bhumidhar and thereafter name of respondent no. 7 came to be recorded on the basis of sale deed. With regard to possession also, trial court has recorded a finding that name of respondent no. 7 is recorded in relevant Khasras. Trial court has also found that plaintiffs-petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that they were recorded over the land in dispute or were in possession over the same.
On the basis of the aforesaid documentary evidence and the finding, trail court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs-petitioners have failed to prove prima facie case and balance of convenience is also not in their favour and thus refused to grant temporary injunction. On appeal filed by plaintiffs-petitioners, lower appellate court has confirmed the findings recorded by trial court and dismissed the appeal.
It is well settled that no injunction can be granted unless plaintiff proves that he has prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and shall suffer irreparable loss, if injunction is not granted.
In the case in hand, both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiffs have failed to prove prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour.
In view of the findings recorded by two courts that plaintiffs-petitioners are not in possession over the land in dispute, it cannot be said that they shall suffer irreparable loss by refusal of injunction.
In view of the above, there is no scope for interference in the impugned orders.
Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.