Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Singh v. Addl.. Distt. Judge And Others - WRIT - C No. 28932 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10212 (24 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By virtue of sale-deed dated 21.4.2001, the respondent no. 3 claims to be the owner of the property in dispute, which has been executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent no. 3.  The respondent no. 4 became the owner of the property in dispute vide sale dated 23.9.1998.

 The respondent no. 3 filed a Suit for injunction restraining the petitioner not to interfere in the peaceful possession and moved an application for interim relief.  The Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Fatehabad, Agra vide order dated 14.9.2005 allowed the application and restrained the petitioner defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property in dispute.  Against the said order, appeal has been dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Agra by the impugned order dated 7.3.2006.

Heard Sri K. D. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale-deed is fictitious, inasmuch as the same has been got executed by fraud etc. and for cancellation of the said sale-deed, Suit is pending.  However, he is not able to show any interim order passed in that Suit.  He submitted that the interim order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) dated 14.9.2005 is unjustified and the Appellate Authority has illegally dismissed the appeal.  He submitted that in fact, the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute, therefore, an order of status quo should be passed.

I do not find any merit in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to show that the sale-deeds dated 23.9.1998 and 21.4.2001 has been declared forged or fictitious.  Thus, prima facie the respondent no. 3 is the owner of the property in dispute and the interim order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Fatehabad, Agra cannot be said to be unjustified.

In the result, writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.