[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar And 8 Others vs Addl. Distt. And Session Judge Court ... on 2 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:7403
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7537 of 2025
Vinod Kumar And 8 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Addl. Distt. And Session Judge Court No.8 Lko. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Vishun Narain, Sushant Kumar Kabir
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Vishun Narain, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.8 Lucknow allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal No.200182 of 2022: R.N. Kapoor and another Vs. Smt. Vidyawati and others and setting aside the order dated 16.07.2002, passed by the 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.465 of 2002 directing the parties to maintain status-quo.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made an oral request for being permitted to strike out the name of the appellate court from the array of opposite parties. The request is accepted and the learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to strike out the name of the court from the array of parties and to renumber the remaining opposite parties.
4. The petitioners/predecessors in interest had filed the aforesaid suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the opposite parties pleading that they are the owners and in possession of the disputed land bearing Khasra No.73, measuring 0.367 hectare & Khasra No.71 measuring 0.359, situated in Village Mubarakpur, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow since the life time of Munni Lal-husband of the plaintiff no.1 and father of other plaintiffs. After the death of Munni Lal names of the plaintiffs were mutated in the revenue records. On 20.05.2002 the defendants tried to forcibly take possession of the land in question and therefore the suit for injunction was filed. The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute.
5. The defendants filed objection against the aforesaid application stating that the defendants had executed a sale deed in respect of the land bearing Gata No.718 in favour of Madhu Sakhari Grih Nirman Samiti (defendant no.1) through its Secretary R.N. Kapoor (defendant no.3) on 11.04.1906 and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the property in dispute.
6. The learned Trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction by means of an order dated 16.07.2002, wherein it is recorded that CH Form 45 issued on 21.05.2002 mentions the names of the plaintiffs. The defendants have produced a certified copy of the sale deed showing that Munna Lal had transferred the land bearing Gata Nos.352, 353 and 354 measuring 1 bigha 11 biswa. The names of the purchasers have been mutated in the revenue records. Although, the learned trial court has recorded that the documents produced by the defendants were up to date showing that the land in question have been recorded in the names of the defendants, the correctness of the documents can only be ascertained after the parties are given an opportunity to adduce evidence. For this reason the learned trial court directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The defendants had challenged the injunction order by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.182 of 2002, which was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 05.11.2018, passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Lucknow. The injunction order was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.37228 (M/S) of 2018 which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this court by means of a judgment and order dated 18.02.2019, wherein this court held as under:
"In the instant case since the entry of the petitioners in the revenue record was made after the death of late Munni Lal thus the doubt as regards possession appears to have crept in despite the position being settled in favour of the petitioners under the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 4.12.2010. This order passed ex-parte, according to the petitioners, has not been assailed either before any higher court or by making an application for setting aside the same before the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation itself.
The appellate court below in the circumstances of the case ought to have verified the possession of disputed land before upholding the order passed by the trial court. The question of possession not having been actually verified would render the impugned order as invalid in the eye of law, hence the same calls for an interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The order passed by the appellate court below is thus set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate court below for ascertaining the actual possession of the petitioners in the light of the revenue entry and its implications under law. "
7. It is in furtherance of this order dated 18.02.2019 passed by this court that the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 has been passed. The appellate court has held in the impugned order that the plaintiffs claim title on the basis of succession after death of Munni Lal and their names is recorded in the relevant extracts of khatauni issued on 26.01.1999 and in CH Form 45. The defendants claim title through a registered sale deed dated 11.04.1996 executed by Munni Lal and they claim to be in possession on the land since the date of execution of the sale deed. The defendants have filed relevant extracts of khatauni issued on 16.05.2002 wherein the name of the purchaser Madhu Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, through its Secretary R.N. Kapoor is recorded. The defendants had submitted that the mutation order dated 24.04.2001 was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing an application for recall before the Consolidation Officer which was allowed by means of an order dated 18.10.2017. This order was challenged by filing a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the DDC allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 18.10.2007 and affirmed the mutation order dated 24.04.2001. Thus, the appellants-plaintiffs are recorded in the latest khatauni as bhumidhars with transferable rights. The plaintiffs have submitted that they have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed bearing Regular Suit No.49 of 2014 in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.21, Lucknow.
8. The appellate court has held that the plaintiffs have claimed that they were the recorded tenure holders as per the khatauni issued on 26.01.1999, whereas in the subsequent khatauni prepared on 16.05.2002 the names of defendants are recorded and this khatauni was not placed before the court at the time of filing of the suit. The factum of subsequent mutation of names was concealed by the plaintiffs. The order passed by the DDC affirming the mutation order dated 24.04.2001 has attained finality. The registered sale deed dated 11.04.1996 records that the possession of the land in question had been handed over to the purchaser at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed has not yet been cancelled by any court. From the up to date revenue records wherein the names of the defendants is recorded, prima facie possession of plaintiffs over the land in question is not established. Therefore, the plaintiffs have got no prima facie case. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury could also not be established by the plaintiffs.
9. Relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanumanthappa vs. Muninarayanappa, 1997 (29) ALR 392 (SC) the appellate court has held that no order of injunction can be issued against the true owner of the property.
10. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are continuing in possession of the land in dispute, their suit for cancellation of sale deed is pending consideration and in these circumstances it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the parties be directed to maintain status quo till decision of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed.
11. The sale deed was executed by late Munni Lal-predecessor in interest of the petitioners in the year 1996. Although, the petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction in the year 2002, they did not challenge the validity of the sale deed at that point of time. Although the existence of the sale deed was pleaded in the objection against the temporary injunction application, the validity of the sale deed was not assailed by the petitioners till the year 2014. The sale deed has not yet been cancelled. The defendants-opposite parties are recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the sale deed executed by the recorded tenure holder Munni Lal.
12. In these circumstances, the appellate court has not committed any error or illegality in allowing the appeal taking into consideration the aforesaid relevant facts.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order of DDC has been challenged by filing Writ Petition No.22403 (Cons.) of 2020, however, no interim order has been passed in that writ petition.
14. Mere pendency of the writ petition would not dissolve the effect of the order passed by the DDC.
15. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
February 2, 2026
Ram.
