Uttarakhand High Court
Shri Chaman Lal vs Shri Gulab Singh & on 6 June, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
SA No.146 of 2024
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel
for the appellant/plaintiff.
2. Present Second Appeal is being
preferred against the impugned judgment
and decree dated 27.01.2020, passed by
learned Civil Judge, (J/D), Vikas Nagar,
District Dehradun, in O.S. No. 98 of 2008,
Shri Chaman Lal vs. Shri Gulab Singh &
others as well as the order dated
27.08.2024, passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Vikas Nagar, District
Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2020,
Chaman Lal vs. Gulab Singh & others.
3. Learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff submits that the original
suit no. 98 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff
against the defendants/respondents for
permanent injunction and cancellation of
sale-deed dated 13.01.2006 and subsequent
sale-deed dated 11th July, 2007 which were
executed during the period when the ad
interim injunction of status quo dated
09.09.2005 was in operation in Civil Suit
No. 389 of 2005, in which, Om Prakash was
a party and though Om Prakash was aware
of the status quo order dated 09.09.2005,
however the sale-deed dated 13.01.2006
was executed by him. The learned Trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated
27.01.2020 dismissed the Suit No. 98 of
2008 of the plaintiff and the appellate court
in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2020, partly
allowed the appeal and the registered sale-
deed dated 11th July, 2007 was declared
illegal and void. However, with respect to the
sale-deed dated 13.01.2006, it was directed
that the parties shall maintain status quo
with respect to the property till the decision
is made by the competent court with respect
to title of Om Prakash. The appellant
contends that without deciding the
controversy with respect to the title of Om
Prakash, the declaration of the Appellate
Court of maintaining of status quo with
respect to sale-deed dated 13.01.2006 was
not proper. Appellant further contends that
as the sale- deed dated 13.01.2006 was in
violation of ad interim injunction of
maintaining status quo which was in the
knowledge of Om Prakash, as such, the
same was also illegal and void.
4. Admit the Second Appeal on the
following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed
error in law in holding the sale-deed
dated 13.01.2006 and 11th July,
2007 valid without considering the
fact that the same was registered
during the ad interim injunction and
whether the said sale-deed was in
violation of the provisions of Transfer
of Property Act, 1882.
(ii) Whether the Appellate Court
committed an error in law in coming
to the conclusion about the validity of
the sale-deed dated 13.01.2006
without deciding the question as to
whether Om Prakash, who had
executed the said sale-deed had title
on the property in question who was
claiming the title only on the basis of
the revenue entry."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Second Appeal No. 108 of
2004 was preferred by the respondent no.2
& 3 herein Shri Ramesh Chandra and Shri
Rakesh Pant and Coordinate Bench of this
Court on 1st August, 2024 admitted the said
Second Appeal No. 108 of 2024 and
execution of the judgment and decree dated
27th August, 2024 passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar in
Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2020 Chaman Lal vs.
State was stayed and the parties were
directed to maintain status quo with regard
to the possession over the property in
question as on date and they were further
directed to not create any third party
interest in respect of the subject matter of
the suit.
6. Issue notice to the respondent nos. 1
to 4 returnable within six weeks. Steps be
taken within a week.
7. List this Second Appeal along with the
Second Appeal No. 108 of 2024.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
06.06.2025
Kaushal
