Uttarakhand High Court
AO/369/2025 on 30 October, 2025
2025:UHC:9563
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
A.O. No.369 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the
appellant.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent
no.3.
2. This Appeal from Order has been
preferred by the appellant assailing the order
dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned IIIrd
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 49 of 2023,
whereby the learned Court below declined to
grant interim injunction in favour of the
appellant.
3. The brief facts of the case that are
necessary for adjudication are that the
appellant instituted Original Suit No. 49 of
2023, seeking cancellation of Gift Deed dated
08.11.2021 executed by him in favour of
respondent no. 1, who happens to be his real
son. It is pleaded that the said Gift Deed was
executed by the appellant out of love and
affection, and that the land in question was
subsequently mutated in the name of
respondent no. 1 in the revenue records. It is
further averred that, after obtaining mutation,
respondent no. 1 sold the property in question
to respondent no. 2, who, in turn, executed a
registered sale deed in favour of respondent
no.3. The appellant, thereafter, filed the
aforesaid suit for cancellation of the Gift Deed
on the ground that it was obtained by
misrepresentation and undue influence, and,
consequently, sought an injunction restraining
the respondents from alienating or raising
construction on the land in question.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant, being 83 years of age, is a
super senior citizen and that the Gift Deed was
executed under undue influence. It is contended
that the learned Court below erred in declining
injunction solely on the ground of possession,
2025:UHC:9563
overlooking the fact that the very execution and
validity of the Gift Deed is under challenge.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 supports the impugned order
and submits that the Gift Deed having been
validly executed, registered, and accepted, has
been acted upon, and the subsequent
purchasers have acquired valid title. It is
submitted that the appellant has no subsisting
right or possession over the property.
6. This Court has considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record. The
primary issue before this Court is not the
validity of the Gift Deed, which is yet to be
adjudicated in the pending suit, but whether
any direction is warranted for expeditious
disposal of the said suit in view of the age of
the appellant and the nature of the controversy.
7. The suit in question is pending since
2023. The pleadings appear to have been
completed, and the issue pertains to
cancellation of a Gift Deed and subsequent
transactions arising therefrom. In such
circumstances, expeditious disposal of the suit
would subserve the ends of justice.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh
Sharma & others, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1,
has underscored the need for expeditious
disposal of cases involving aged litigants. The
Court observed that when senior citizens are
parties to a dispute particularly concerning
ancestral or self-acquired property, the trial
Courts must ensure early adjudication to
prevent undue hardship caused by delay.
Recognizing the advanced age of such
appellants, the Court directed that such matters
be given priority on the board, as justice
delayed would amount to justice denied for
elderly persons.
9. In view of the above discussion, and
considering that the Original Suit No. 49 of
2023 is still pending before the learned IIIrd
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Dehradun, this Court deems it appropriate to
2025:UHC:9563
direct the learned trial Court to decide the said
suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of
one year from the date of production of a
certified copy of this judgment, in accordance
with law.
10. It is, however, clarified that the
observations made herein shall not prejudice
the rights of either party and shall not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the
case.
11. It is further made clear that if, during
pendency of the suit, any third-party interest is
created or construction, if any, is raised over
the property in question, the same shall abide
by the final outcome of the suit.
12. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order
stands disposed of with the above directions.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
30.10.2025
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485
365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,
JAISWAL
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9
D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CE
A66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2025.10.31 11:26:33 +05'30'
