Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anu Anand vs Civil Judge S.D. Ghaziabad And ... on 27 October, 2015
Bench: Krishna Murari, Raghvendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2602 of 2015
Appellant :- Smt. Anu Anand
Respondent :- Civil Judge S.D. Ghaziabad And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Afzal
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.
This plaintiff's appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the trial court rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC.
Suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority, seeking a decree of injunction to restrain the defendant, its employees and officers from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in plot F-76 (LIG), Nand Gram, Pargana Loni, District Ghaziabad. The suit was filed on the allegation that suit property was allotted by the defendant-respondent in favour of one Sri Man Mohan on 21.11.2001. Sri Man Mohan executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plot in question which is a registered documents on the basis of which the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in question. It was further pleaded that said Sri Man Mohan huas also executed an agreement to sell of the said property on 21.11.2001 in favour of the plaintiff and also executed a registered will dated 21.11.2001 in her favour.
Thus, the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant in the plaint was that she is owner in possession over the property on the basis of registered power of attorney, registered will and agreement to sell dated 21.11.2001. An application for temporary injunction was also made on the same allegations.
The proceedings were contested by the development authority by filing written statement and objection to the temporary injunction application alleging that Sri Man Mohan was not found eligible for allotment of the said property in as much as under the 1993 allotment rules, a person or his family members were entitled for allotment of one plot under the scheme floated by the development authority and according to record Sri Man Mohan obtained five plots in his name and thus, vide order dated 26.03.2014 except for first allotment made in his favour, rest four allotments were cancelled which included the suit property.
Trial court after analyzing, mainly, the documentary evidence produced by the parties has returned a finding that plaintiff-appellant had no prima facie case and thus was not entitled for grant of temporary injunction. It was also held that plaintiff has concealed the order of cancellation and thus has not approached the court with clean hand which is necessary for exercising power to grant injunction and thus, also she is not liable to be granted injunction.
The claim of the plaintiff-appellant was based on three documents, i. e. the power of attorney, agreement to sell and will. Once the allotment made in favour of the principal has been cancelled, attorney holder is left with no right. Similarly, no right or interest shall pass on the basis of will which only comes into effect after the death of propounder. On the basis of notarized power of attorney in her favour also, the plaintiff-appellant does not get any right in the suit property.
Since the plaintiff-appellant miserably failed to establish prima-facie case which is an essential ingredient for grant of temporary injunction, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the temporary injunction application.
Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed summarily.
Order Date :- 27.10.2015
Dcs
