Smt. Sudha Sharma and 2 Others v. Rajesh Sharma and 3 Others

Court No. - 1 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7036 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Sudha Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- Rajesh Sharma And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi,Aditya Shankar Tewari Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶2This petition has been filed seeking the following relief: "(I) Direct the defendants-respondents not to create any hindrance and to maintain status quo over the property in question with regard to nature and possession of the suit property, during the pendency of interim injunction application (6C) filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners in Original Suit No.204/2023, Smt. Sudha Sharma and others Vs. Rajesh Sharma and others before the Court below.

(II) Direct the court below to decide the interim injunction application (6C) filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners in Original Suit No.204/2023, Smt. Sudha Sharma and others Vs. Rajesh Sharma and others within stipulated period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court and till then no 3rd party right shall be created by the defendants-respondents.

(III) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(IV) Award the cost of present petition in favour of the petitioners."

¶3It appears that the plaintiff-petitioners has instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the property situated in Mohalla Olandganj, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiffs purchased a part of the property in dispute by means of a sale deed dated 31.3.2006 and the defendants purchased the remaining part of the suit property by a sale deed dated 10.5.2006. It is stated that when the defendants started making efforts to sale their part of the suit property to a third party, the plaintiff-petitioners made an overture to the defendants to purchase the property and since the defendants refused, the aforesaid injunction suit was filed seeking a decree in the following term: "अ-स्थथाई व्यथाददेश ककी आ्ሺप቎ኌ पथाररित करिकदे ्ቚपतवथाददी सस0-1 व 2 कको आददेश पदयथा जथावदे पक वदे इमथारित ममुन्दजर जजैल कदे आवथासदीय भथाग मम वथाददीगण एवस उसकदे पररिवथारि कदे उपयकोग, उपभकोग मम पकसदी ्ቚकथारि कथा ककोई व्यवधथान उत्प्ቐ न करिम, औरि न उसदे पकसदी बथाहरिदी व्यपሹኌ कदे प्ቌ मम पकसदी ्ቚकथारि अन्तररित अथवथा हस्तथान्तररित करिम औरि न चथाजर पቅኌयदेट करिम औरि वथाददीगण कदे प्ቌ मम इमथारित ममुन्दजर जजैल कथा पवቅኌय पवलदेख पनष्पथापदत करिनदे सदे पवरित न रिहदे।"

¶4The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that given the provisions of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the petitioner is entitled to injunction and as such the application 6C filed by the plaintiff-petitioners deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners also presses for a direction to the defendant-respondents not to create any hindrance and to maintain status quo over the suit property during pendency of the temporary injunction application 6C.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address the Court on the aspect of the maintainability of the suit for injunction given the provisions of Section 38 read with clause (e) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and as to how the provision of Section 44 of the Transfer of the Property Act would create any obligation or contract in favour of the petitioner, for prevention of breach of which, injunction could be granted. However, the same could not be demonstrated.

¶6Under the circumstances, the relief as sought for is declined and the petition is dismissed.

¶7Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned court within a period of fifteen days from today. Order Date :- 31.10.2023 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad