Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7692 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nanki Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- Surya Pal And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh K. Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Tawvab Ahmed Khan
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners claim themselves to be the purchasers through a sale deed, said to have been executed by the legal heirs of late Mohd. Masood. They contended that they have purchased a portion of the property, being Plot No. 440 of Village Gauspur Katahula, Pargana Chail, District Allahabad.
The plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed obtained by the petitioners on the ground that the entire area of three plots, namely, 437, 438 and 440 had been purchased through two separate sale deeds dated 06.05.1987 and dated 31.03.1989 from late Mohd. Masood and Mohd. Haroon, who both died in the year 1994 and 1995 respectively. The plaintiffs claimed possession on the strength of said sale deed for the past 30 years and it is alleged by the plaintiffs that they are cultivating the said land since then.
The sale deed of the petitioners is dated 24.03.2014. When the petitioners intended to occupy the area, alleged to have been purchased by them, the said cause of action gave rise to the basis for filing of the suit by the plaintiffs- respondents and prayed for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed obtained by the petitioners.
The trial court, while disposing of the application for interim injunction, travelled through the entire prima facie facts relating to the claim of the plaintiffs and came to a conclusion that the said sale deeds obtained by the plaintiffs was intact and was not under challenge and both the sale deeds indicated the transaction of the total area of all the three plots in their favour.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs had been executed separately by the Mohd. Masood and Mohd. Haroon and there had been no division of the holdings either through any family partition or otherwise and, therefore, both the brothers continued to be co-tenants of the said plots. Accordingly, petitioners, having purchased the land from the heirs of one of the brother's, are entitled to the possession of the purchased area as the sale deed in their favour does suffer from any infirmity. The petitioners further contend that their vendors are recorded as cotenants in the revenue record and have also received compensation of part of the land acquired by the railways. Consequently the injunction granted by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court is manifestly erroneous and the impugned order deserves to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Having considered the same and having heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 plaintiffs, it is apparent that the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession of the land and are cultivating the same for the post 30 years on the basis of two sale deeds that was never subjected to any challenge in spite of the fact that they are in respect of entire area of all the three plots. Consequently, this Court does not find any error of fact or law so as to warrant any interference with the injunction granted by the trial court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Pkb/