[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Rita Sen vs Sri Tarun Kumar And Others on 20 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal Against Order No. 46 of 2026
Smt. Rita Sen ............ Applicant
Vs.
Sri Tarun Kumar and others ...........Respondents
Present: Mr. Priyanshu Gairola (through video conferencing) and Mr. Jai
Krishna Pandey, Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this appeal is made to Order dated
02.02.2026, passed in Original Suit No.23 of 2026, Shri Tarun
Kumar Vs. Shri Birju and others, by the court of Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.), Vikasnagar, District Dehradun ("the Suit"). By the impugned
order, passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ("the Code"). By it, the respondents in the suit
including the appellant has been restrained not to interfere into the
possession of the respondent no.1/the plaintiff in the suit property
and also not to interfere in the construction that is being raised by
the respondent no.1.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. The suit has been instituted by the respondent no.1
seeking declaration for cancellation of multiple sale-deeds
issued in favour the defendants in the suit, including the
appellant. The husband of the defendant no.5 in the suit
namely, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta executed the sale-deed dated
04.07.2005 and correction deed dated 15.10.2012 in
favour of the appellant. Initially the sale-deed was with regard to
Khasra No.871-M admeasuring 0.121 Hectare, but by correction-
deed dated 15.10.2012, the Khasra number was replaced from 871
to 872-M. In the suit, schedule of property has been given and the
appellant has filed a copy of the sale-deed dated 04.07.2005 and
correction-deed dated 15.10.2012. It is admitted to the learned
counsel for the parties that the suit property and the schedule of
the property included in the sale-deed dated 04.07.2005 in favour
of the appellant are one and the same, the boundaries are the
same.
4. It is claim of the respondent no.1/the plaintiff that his
predecessor in interest had already been sold the property in suit
much before it was sold to the husband of the defendant no.5 in
the suit, who subsequently, sold the property to the appellant. It is
argued that once the property had already been sold to the
predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1, the same property
could not have been sold to the husband of the defendant no.5 in
suit. The rights of the predecessor in interest of the respondent
no.1 had already been crystallized. The vendor had after selling the
property to the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1, had
left no interest in the suit property. Therefore, the sale-deed and
correction-deed in favour of the appellant have been sought to be
cancelled.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant had received the property on 04.07.2005 from the
husband of the defendant no.5 in the suit and the correction was
made on 15.10.2012 in the sale-deed. Accordingly, the property has
been mutated in the name of the appellant, whereas the respondent
no.1 had purchased the property on 29.01.2026 and, immediately
thereafter, he encroached upon the property of the appellant and
started raising construction and had filed the suit on 02.01.2026.
He filed an application for temporary injunction, in which the
impugned order has been passed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that,
in fact, the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1 had
already sold the property; the same property could not have been
sold to the appellant. Therefore, the sale-deed executed in favour of
the appellant by the husband of the defendant no.5 in the suit is
null and void.
7. It is admitted that, in fact, the name of the predecessor
in interest of the respondent no.1 had already been mutated with
regard to the suit property, which means the appellant and the
predecessor in interest of respondent no.1, both have been mutated
with regard to the suit property. The boundaries in the sale-deed
are one and the same. The respondent no.1 was to raise
construction. Admittedly, he purchased the suit property on
29.01.2026 and immediately thereafter, he filed a suit on
02.02.2026, when the impugned order was passed.
8. In the impugned order, the court had not considered
these facts. In fact, in the impugned order, the court records, as to
whether the earlier vendor had any right to make any correction or
not? There is no material on it. But, this fact was ignored that
mutation had already been done. The rights of vendors and
purchaser could have been prima facie examined by a scrutiny of
the respective sale-deeds. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
the appellant and other defendants in the suit ought to have been
permitted to file their objections before issuing any ad interim
injunction. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set
aside.
9. The impugned order is set aside.
10. The appellant and other defendants in the suit shall
file their objections to the injunction application and it shall be
decided without entertaining any unnecessary adjournment. Since,
both the parties claim their ownership and possession on the one
and the same piece of land, based on the sale-deeds that have been
executed long back, the interest of justice demands that the parties
may be directed to maintain status quo till the application under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code is decided.
10. The parties shall maintain status quo till the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code, filed by the
respondent no.1 is decided. The status quo means that parties shall
not raise construction, whatsoever, on the suit property till the
application for temporary injunction is decided.
11. The appeal is decided accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
20.02.2026
Sanjay
SANJAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686d
f4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001,
KANOJIA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450
A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY
KANOJIA
Date: 2026.02.20 16:05:19 +05'30'
